Waterboarding is torture. Being made to sleep naked is not torture.

[phleshdef]

And neither is being held in isolation.

Just because something is unpleasant, does not make it torture.

Being placed in a straight jacket is unpleasant and uncomfortable, I would say way more than being made to sleep without clothing because you can't adjust to certain positions. But its LEGAL and definately not torture. Torture involves severe punishment. Nothing that we know so far about Manning's treatment resembles anything close to torture. Comparing it to actions taken by the Bush administration, where they practiced simulated drowning (basically choking people with water), is ridiculous. Hell, I've slept naked numerous times (TMI, I know) and it was fine. It definately was nothing like being put in a situation where I'm nearly drowned to death. Thats because waterboarding is torture and sleeping nude is not.

The fact is, we've made prisoners sleep naked and spend time in isolation for various reasons for AGES. We've practiced this out in the open. Its never been a secret. It never had to be. Its not torture. Its not inhumane. It sucks for the prisoner. But as I said, something being simply unpleasant does not make it torture.

Manning is a criminal who will be convicted for crimes that we all know he committed. He betrayed his oath to the military. And though I ultimately welcome the transparency provided by the things Wikileaks has put out there, I also fully approve of upholding the rule of law and punishing him for crimes. He is not a hero. He is a criminal.

I just think its odd that after all these years of using these kinds of practices for certain prisoner situations, that many pick now to suddenly act like its some kind of inhumane act. That some pick now, after years of this kind of activity, ACTIVITIES THAT NO ONE HAS SERIOUSLY SUGGESTED WERE TORTURE IN THE PAST, that some pick now to ridiculously put it on the same par as actual torture, stuff like waterboarding, beatings, extreme sleep deprivation, food deprivation, etc. Not only does it make us all look really silly, but it also makes us look like a bunch of boys crying wolf, barking the word "torture" at every unpleasant thing a prisoner has to endure as part of their imprisonment. Based on this standard, we may as well not even lock people up because being locked up is unpleasant and therefore must be torture, right?

If it turns out that Manning is truly not a suicide concern, then I fully agree that it was wrong to take "precautions" that were unnecessary. That would mean they were done out of a mean spirited sense of vengence. Thats wrong. Its corrupt and it should not be the way we handle prisoners for any reason.

Its also still not torture. Had the worst of the Bush administrations policies for terrorist suspects been merely taken away their clothes and placing them in isolation, we wouldn't even be having this conversation about torture. You know I'm right.

[donheld]

1. -1

[phleshdef]

2. Yet you offer nothing to refute a word I said.

[Cherchez la Femme]

59. Perhaps because you're misstating

and ameliorating what is being done to Pvt. Manning?

Just a hunch.

[TheWraith]

78. And yet you can't explain WHY, nor provide any evidence.

So you attack the messenger, and simply imply that there's some great mass of obvious proof that you won't deign to mention.

[Cherchez la Femme]

84. If saying

"misstating" and "ameliorating" is attacking,

you owe yourself a brand new unabridged dictionary!
Throw in a Thesaurus too!


Nor do I have to delineate "obvious proof" -- many people with a much better command of the English language, Glenn Greenwald is at the head of the pack, have already done so. The information is widely known.

[hlthe2b]

3. Forced nudity a breach of the Geneva Conventions...

The Guardian reported last year, forced nudity is almost certainly a breach of the Geneva Conventions; the Conventions do not technically apply to Manning, as he is not a prisoner of war, but they certainly establish the minimal protections to which all detainees -- let alone citizens convicted of nothing -- are entitled. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/oct/25/uk-military-interrogation-manuals

I'm sure you don't give a damn about the international conventions that we were not only a signatory to, but helped to promulgate. But, you damned well should

[Shiver]

4. Please don't take this as snark, because that is not what I intend,

But how long was he made to sleep naked for? I keep hearing conflicting reports, and I don't know who to believe. Everyone seems to have some kind of agenda behind this, whether it's pro-Wikileaks, anti-Obama, or whatever. There are so many sides and differentiating stories, I just don't know what the hell is going on.

[hlthe2b]

8. Conflicting reports because few are able to talk to him...

I believe that Glenn Greenwald has been following this most closely and has access to his Manning's lawyer. I take his assessment to be the most credible. If you haven't followed Greenwald, check out his frequent blogs at Salon.com.

[Shiver]

14. Interesting...

I haven't formed an opinion yet on this whole matter, and I don't think I will until I'm certain as to what is true.

[phleshdef]

5. Your own article says forced nudity for the purpose of coercion, to get information from them.

In other words, stripping them down naked as means to interrogate them. This has nothing to do with interrogation. Your argument fails.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Avant Guardian]

81. Interesting that you chose to leave out the parts that count

You know, the part about using it as PUNISHMENT or to INTIMIDATE

Article 1

For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

[Travelman]

70. Then every single prisoner in the Western world is being tortured

There is not a single prison in the Western world that does not force their prisoners to bathe on a regular basis. And in prison, they don't hand you a towel, some soap, and a cashmere robe to wear into the marble shower with ruffles on the curtain. Prisoners are marched, unceremoniously, into a communal shower and are watched by guards the entire time.

So, are we going to call that torture, too?

[Avant Guardian]

74. He isnt talking about bathing

...and you know it

[Travelman]

82. He's talking about nudity

And that happens when prisoners bathe. They are forced to be bathe, and they are forced to be nude.

[Skittles]

7. are you for real???

:rofl:

[phleshdef]

9. Yes, I'm real, I'm naked and I'm in my bed. Its torture I tells ya.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[phleshdef]

26. He gave up that freedom when he betrayed his military oath.

Actually he gave it up when he took that oath.

And yes, he should get a trial ASAP so we can be done with that. But there is no question of his guilt. He already ADMITTED IT.

[Skittles]

27. what is the PURPOSE of making him sleep naked????????

and what punishment do you propose for people who LIED THEIR WAY INTO WAR, supported TORTURE????

[phleshdef]

28. To keep him from hanging himself with his clothes.

And I think there are better ways of doing that. I don't think he should be made to sleep naked. But its not torture.

[Skittles]

29. yes, because you ENJOY sleeping naked

AWESOME reasoning :puke:

And I'm sure the military would be so fucking SAD if Manning offed himself. Please.

I'm DONE with this shit

[phleshdef]

30. No, because torture involves something much more severe, it involves actual pain.

There is nothing painful about being nude unless the room is cold. And even with clothes on, that could be considered painful.

[Avant Guardian]

75. No, it doesnt have to involve physical pain, and you know it

You are pushing the Bush administration meme. Why are you forced to spew Bush claims to defend Obama now?

[lob1]

32. I think it's more than sleeping naked. According to MSNBC,

at roll call, he's forced to stand naked in front of his cell, while other prisoners are clothed. And it may also be a matter of keeping him cold and uncomfortable. Humiliation may not be physical torture, but they go hand in hand. Remember in Abu Graib (spelling?} how they loved to make the prisoners parade around naked? Same thing here. He's being punished without being convicted of anything. In a democracy, it's supposed to work the other way around.

[struggle4progress]

68. Cuz he suggested he could commit suicide with the elastic band of his undies, a few weeks after

another Quantico detainee committed suicide, so his jailers didn't take any chances but got him evaluated by a shrink and then dug up some no-shred jammies for him

[TorchTheWitch]

39. he's a soldier - he has virtually no freedom and choices

he's also in prison - he has virtually no freedom and choices.

All the people here aghast that he had to sleep naked with a blanket to cover his modesty in order that he not use the waistband from his underwear or his flipflops to kill himself as he SAID he could would explode their own heads at what he was made to go through just in boot camp right alongside every other soldier.

Stick to the solitary confinement bit - complaining about these absurd little things like he doesn't have "freedom" and "choice" to wear what he wants while he sleeps as not only a soldier but a soldier in prison makes the entire argument look nuts.

[Hutzpa]

48. ?

huh..

:wtf:

[Travelman]

69. When one volunteers for military service

they voluntarily give up numerous civil rights. That is part of being in the military. You don't get the choice to wear a purple T-shirt on Thursday just because you feel like it; they will tell you what to wear and when to wear it and you will follow fucking orders or they will surely make you wish that you had.

Manning gave up his freedom of choice voluntarily when he signed on the dotted line. He further gave up his freedom of choice when he decided to steal a bunch of classified material and give it to a foreign entity. He has made his bed, and now he has to lay in it, naked or not.

[WingDinger]

77. Makes you question anyone that CHOOSES military, as opposed to trying to get out of even worse envir

environs.

[cliffordu]

49. I'll bet it is for your wife.....

[WingDinger]

76. About the STUPIDEST thing I have heard here.

Are you allowed a blanket? He gets a throw like you wear when being protected against radiation from an Xray. Likely on concrete, or with mesh, that allows chills to come up. Any dumbass that offers how this or that is no big deal, would cry like a baby to lose control of their environment to that extent.


Amazing how suseptible people are to hateful, ignorant propaganda. Especially supposed progressives.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[phleshdef]

11. You can't even keep your posters straight. I wasn't the "tired of Manning threads" poster.

[leveymg]

12. Are you looking for a job in the DOJ Office of Policy?

You sound like you have a knack for splitting hairs and distinctions without a difference.

[phleshdef]

13. Splitting hairs? Yes because pointing out REAL torture and how it differs from this stuff...

...is just "splitting hairs"

[leveymg]

15. You're implying that it's legal because its humiliation, not physical torture. Right?

The problem with your argument is that both are prohibited under the Convention. That's splitting hairs and a distinction without a difference. No?

[phleshdef]

16. Actually its prohibited as a means of coercion and interrogation... but its not...

...prohibited as a means of preventing suicide, which is the basis they are using for doing it. If they are making up the suicidal worries, then thats wrong, and I said as much in my OP. In either case, it does not violate Geneva at all. Also, because this is a UCMJ violation, those Geneva prohibitions don't even apply to him. But even if they did, its not being done for the purpose of interrogating him, so its still perfectly in line with Geneva.

[leveymg]

17. No, it's prohibited as mistreatment.

Here's the plain-language: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2881187.stm

Humiliation 'key'

The Geneva Convention on prisoners of war (PoWs) in general prohibits humiliating and degrading treatment.

Article 13 of the Third Geneva Convention says "prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity".

3rd GENEVA CONVENTION
Basic food rations should keep prisoners in good health
Suitable clothing should be supplied, preferably prisoners' original uniforms
Prisoners should be released and repatriated without delay after ceasefire
Prisoners to be protected from violence or intimidation and against "insults and public curiosity"

Text of Geneva Convention (ICRC web site)
What happens to surrendering troops?

What is perceived as humiliating by the families and communities is key to interpreting this article of the convention, says the ICRC, which acts as the guardian of the convention.

You CAN read, right?

[phleshdef]

18. So being seen naked by guards is humiliating?

Was it humiliating when he had to shower in front of other soldiers? And why is this something thats allowed to happen in prisons all throughout the country and all over the world, all in UN countries? What about strip searches? Why hasn't the UN ever said one god damn word about those? Your argument holds no water.

By your standard, they shouldn't even be allowed to lock me up for anything because I would feel very humiliated by being put in prison at all.

As I said, we've taken away clothes from prisoners for AGES and NO ONE EVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT IT AND EVERYONE KNEW ABOUT IT. WHERE WERE YOU ALL THESE YEARS?

[leveymg]

20. Where it's perceived as punative, it is.

In the controlled, closely observed environment of a military brig, there is no rationale for enforced nudity. This is being done to humiliate, not to prevent suicide. Most people recognize that. What's wrong with you?

[phleshdef]

21. Nothing is wrong with me. There is not one iota of proof for that. Regardless, he isn't a POW.

What you posted applies to POWs. Its irrelevant in discussing the legality of it.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LanternWaste]

63. So it's torture when done to POWs...

"What you posted applies to POWs..."

So it's torture when done to POWs, but not to incarcerated Americans, yes? What then is the precise and relevant moral difference?

[phleshdef]

19. By the way, he also is not a prisoner of war which is what your post applies to.

So yes I can read fine, you might want to work on it though.

[leveymg]

22. You're falling back on a technicality - a distinction without a difference.

Shows that your moral argument has collapsed.

[phleshdef]

23. Nudity is not immoral. So there is no moral argument to make one way or the other.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[saorsa]

31. Forced nudity, on and off the suicide watches with limitations on excersize, some people

think this is to force him into revealing info. I think the purpose is to punish, possibly to cause mental decline, perhaps make sure he is so undermined that he does not last long in prison, after sentencing. Rumsfeld et all were big fans of forced nudity, now why d'ya suppose that?

The short version:

The Brig has stripped PFC Manning of all of his clothing for the past three nights, and they intend to continue this practice indefinitely. Each night, Brig guards force PFC Manning to relinquish all of his clothing. He then lies in a cold jail cell naked until the following morning, when he is required to endure the humiliation of standing naked at attention for the morning roll call.

Read more: http://www.bradleymanning.org/16294/the-truth-behind-quantico-brigs-decision-to-strip-pfc-manning/#ixzz1GYRRKzLX

The recent communication:

The most graphic passage of the letter is Manning's description of how he was placed on suicide watch for three days from 18 January. "I was stripped of all clothing with the exception of my underwear. My prescription eyeglasses were taken away from me and I was forced to sit in essential blindness."

Manning writes that he believes the suicide watch was imposed not because he was a danger to himself but as retribution for a protest about his treatment held outside Quantico the day before. Immediately before the suicide watch started, he said guards verbally harassed him, taunting him with conflicting orders.

When he was told he was being put on suicide watch, he writes, "I became upset. Out of frustration, I clenched my hair with my fingers and yelled: 'Why are you doing this to me? Why am I being punished? I have done nothing wrong.'"

He also describes the experience of being stripped naked at night and made to stand for parade in the nude, a condition that continues to this day. "The guard told me to stand at parade rest, with my hands behind my back and my legs spaced shoulder-width apart. I stood at parade rest for about three minutes … The and the other guards walked past my cell. He looked at me, paused for a moment, then continued to the next cell. I was incredibly embarrassed at having all these people stare at me naked."

Manning has been charged with multiple counts relating to the leaking of hundreds of thousands of secret US government cables, videos and warlogs from Iraq and Afghanistan to WikiLeaks. The charges include "aiding the enemy", which can carry the death penalty.

The legal letter was addressed to the US military authorities and was drawn up in response to their recent decision to keep Manning on a restriction order called Prevention of Injury (PoI). It means he is kept in his cell alone for 23 hours a day and checked every five minutes by guards including, if necessary, through the night.

The letter contains excerpts from the observation records kept in the brig which consistently report that Manning is "respectful, courteous and well spoken" and "does not have any suicidal feelings at this time".

Sixteen separate entries made from 27 August until the records stop on 28 January show that Manning was evaluated by prison psychiatrists who found he was not a danger to himself and should be removed from the PoI order.

http://www.readersupportednews.org/off-site-news-section/368-wikileaks/5243-bradley-manning-speaks-out-about-prison-torture


All of this has been going on for a while, as anyone who accesses the progressive media would know:

By way of background, PFC Manning was transferred to the Quantico Brig on July 29, 2010. Upon his arrival, he was placed in MAX custody and under suicide risk. On August 6, 2010, the forensic psychiatrist for the Brig recommended that he be moved from suicide risk to POI watch. That recommendation was followed and PFC Manning was moved to POI watch. Due to his improvement and adjustment to confinement, on August 27, 2010, the Brig’s forensic psychiatrist recommended that PFC Manning be taken off of POI watch and that his confinement classification be changed from MAX to Medium Custody In (MDI).

Over the course of the following three months, two separate forensic psychiatrists consistently stated that there was no medical reason for PFC Manning to be under POI watch. The only exception to this was on December 10, 2010 when it was recommended that PFC Manning remain under POI watch for one week. The following week, the forensic psychiatrist once again recommended that PFC Manning be removed from POI watch. Despite these consistent recommendations, PFC Manning has remained on POI watch and in MAX custody.


On January 18, 2011, over the recommendation of two forensic psychiatrists, the commander of the Quantico Brig, CWO4 Averhart, placed PFC Manning under suicide risk. The suicide risk assignment meant that PFC Manning was required to remain in his cell for 24 hours a day. He was stripped of all clothing with the exception of his underwear. His prescription eyeglasses were taken away from him. He was forced to sit in essential blindness with the exception of the times that he was reading or given limited television privileges. During those times, his glasses were returned to him. Additionally, there was always a guard sitting outside of his cell watching him.

The Army Staff Judge Advocate’s Office was made aware of this situation on January 19, 2011. To its credit, the Army Staff Judge Advocate’s Office worked through the military channels at the request of the defense to ensure that the Quantico Brig conducted a timely review of the necessity for the suicide risk restrictions. Based upon this review, CWO4 Averhart removed the suicide risk restrictions at 3:21 p.m. yesterday and placed PFC Manning back into POI watch.

Life for PFC Manning, however, is not much better now that he has been returned to POI watch. Like suicide risk, he is held in solitary confinement. For 23 hours per day, he will sit in his cell. The guards will check on him every five minutes by asking him if he is okay. PFC Manning will be required to respond in some affirmative manner. At night, if the guards cannot see him clearly, because he has a blanket over his head or is curled up towards the wall, they will wake him in order to ensure that he is okay. He will receive each of his meals in his cell. He will not be allowed to have a pillow or sheets. He will not be allowed to have any personal items in his cell. He will only be allowed to have one book or one magazine at any given time to read. The book or magazine will be taken away from him at the end of the day before he goes to sleep. He will be prevented from exercising in his cell. If he attempts to do push-ups, sit-ups, or any other form of exercise he will be forced to stop. He will receive one hour of exercise outside of his cell daily. The guards will take him to an empty room and allow him to walk. He will usually just walk in figure eights around the room until his hour is complete. When he goes to sleep, he will be required to strip down to his underwear and surrender his clothing to the guards.

The Article 138 complaint will now be forwarded from Colonel Choike to the officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction over CWO4 Averhart. This officer is required to inquire into the complaint and take proper measures for redressing the wrong complained of by PFC Manning. Afterwards, the matter must be sent to the Secretary of the Navy for review.

here is where you can find the updates:
http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/

[nenagh]

33. The last I read on DU, posted by Clio the Leo, Mon Mar 14, @ 12:48 am,,

says "Manning...now wears suicide-proof sleep suit" and the post links to the dailymail.co.uk

I was very pleased to read that..

[treestar]

34. Yes and continuing to use the label is faux outrage

Let alone defending someone for leaking classified information.

[TorchTheWitch]

35. long term isolation is torture

The US just no longer recognizes this though it used to be on the forefront that it was indeed cruel and unusual punishment, stopped doing it here, and berated other countries for doing it.

In the early 1800's, Eastern State Penitentiary in Philadelphia was the first prison built in the US with a system intended for long term solitary confinement, which in it's time was considered to be far more humane than what prisons were like at the time (and likely true as prisons in the US at the time were ghastly). This new system and building design coined the term "penitentiary" as the enforced extreme solitude was meant to reform inmates through personal reflection ("penance"). Prisons all over the US and around the world adopted this system and built similar prisons.

In 1842, Charles Dickens visited the Eastern State Penitentiary and would later write, "The System is rigid, strict and hopeless solitary confinement, and I believe it, in its effects, to be cruel and wrong...."


Gradually others were coming to the same conclusion, and by the early 1900's it was known that this system of solitary confinement was terribly cruel, and the penitentiary began lifting the ridged solitude requirements - for the first time, inmates ate their meals in a communal dining hall.

By 1970, most inmates had been transferred to the State Correctional Institution at Graterford, and the building itself is beginning to fall to ruin, and by the next year is abandoned, vandals destroy much of the interior and a forest starts growing in the cells and halls.

In the late 1980's/early 1990's, the building is shored up and historical tours begin.

It still stands much the crumbling ruin of a failed and cruel system, and is the creepiest damn building inside and out I've ever seen. Ironic that at the same time the preservation society was fixing it up for historical tours for the general purpose of exposing such a cruel and inhumane system all over the US the same system of long term enforced solitary confinement creeps back into modern prison buildings with a new coined term of Maximum Security or Super-Max prisons - same shit, different buildings.

http://easternstate.org/learn/timeline

[Ganja Ninja]

37. Yes it's really more like a fraternity hazing.

:applause: Rush Limbaugh would be proud.

[LanternWaste]

38. I imagine what we call a thing..

I imagine what we call a thing (e.g., "torture" or "unpleasant") is more often than not predicated on our own biases, and reflects how we may feel about that thing.

"You know I'm right."
I'm quite confident you believe that to be the case. :shrug:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

40. legal, immoral and unethical are not all the same thing

if something doesnt rise to the level of torture, it still rises to the level of mistreatment

[ZombieHorde]

41. Isn't the whole concept of contrived punishment based on mistreatment?

Isn't locking a person in a cage against their will mistreatment?

[Hippo_Tron]

44. No, because Locking people up (in certain cases) is constructive

It's main purpose is (or at least ought to be) to prevent people from continuing to commit crimes that are harming others. In this case, it's constructive to lock Manning up so that he doesn't release more classified information. The primary purpose of confinement is not (or at least should not be) to make him suffer.

However, saying when he can and can't exercise and sleep during the 23 hours a day in his cell isn't constructive. Its primary purpose is to make him suffer. The state, IMO, should inflict no punishment that is primarily intended to make somebody suffer.

[DirkGently]

42. Solitary does long-term psych damage. Forced nudity violates human rights standards. And

Manning is NOT a convict. He is a U.S. citizen who is presumed to be innocent, being held pending trial. NO ONE here or anywhere would not see Manning's treatment as abusive and improper if applied to them or anyone they cared about. It is inexcusable under any analysis.

And this is not even remotely the first time these treatments have been identified as inhumane, illegal, and torturous.

ScienceDaily (Mar. 6, 2007) — Forms of ill treatment during captivity that do not involve physical pain--such as psychological manipulation, deprivation, humiliation and forced stress positions--appear to cause as much mental distress and traumatic stress as physical torture, according to a report in the March issue of Archives of General Psychiatry, one of the JAMA/Archives journals.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070305202811.htm

A considerable number of the prisoners fell, after even a short confinement, into a semi-fatuous condition, from which it was next to impossible to arouse them, and others became violently insane; others, still, committed suicide; while those who stood the ordeal better were not generally reformed, and in most cases did not recover suffcient mental activity to be of any subsequent service to the community.

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/03/30/090330fa_fact_gawande#ixzz1GbqnNqAA

This past February the American Psychological Association amended their 2007 anti-torture resolution to unequivocally condemn the use of prolonged isolation as unethical. Unfortunately, the APA regularly condemns torture in the abstract but to date has not had a word to say about real, existing, US torture. The APA could give this resolution some concrete meaning by issuing an amicus brief supporting the attempts of these detainees to be moved to less harsh settings, where interaction is allowed. Further, the APA resolution’s states that:

Psychologists are absolutely prohibited from knowingly planning, designing, participating in or assisting in the use of all condemned techniques at any time and may not enlist others to employ these techniques in order to circumvent this resolution’s prohibition.

If this resolution means anything, it means that psychologists are forbidden from participating in any way in activities at Guantanamo’s Camps 5 and 6, where prolonged isolation is the rule. It is time for the APA to speak loud and clear to state, consistent with its own resolutions, that psychologists may not participate in any capacity in these facilities.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_stephen__080426_isolation_driving_gu.htm

Poo-pooing Manning's treatment as "unpleasant" or pretending that it is SOP is simply unsupportable at this point. When you find yourself on the opposite side of the fence as Amnesty International, you have become the bad guys:

We are concerned that the conditions inflicted on Bradley Manning are unnecessarily severe and amount to inhumane treatment by the US authorities," said Susan Lee, Amnesty International's Programme Director for the Americas.

"Manning has not been convicted of any offence, but military authorities appear to be using all available means to punish him while in detention. This undermines the United States' commitment to the principle of the presumption of innocence."

http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=ENGNAU2011012421091&lang=e

Amnesty's Letter to Sec. Gates:
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR51/006/2011/en/df463159-5ba2-416a-8b98-d52df0dc817a/amr510062011en.pdf

Amnesty's Action Page with Petition:

http://takeaction.amnestyusa.org/c.jhKPIXPCIoE/b.6068385/k.69BE/Action_Center_Marketing/siteapps/advocacy/ActionItem.aspx?c=jhKPIXPCIoE&b=6068385&aid=15188&msource=WPSGTL5188B&cid=psgtl5188

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Carolina]

45. exactly

let those who say it's not torture walk in Manning shoes for one day.

Forcing someone to strip is humiliating, degrading and meant to do harm! That's torture. Period. The Nazis did it and as did the US in Abu Ghraib.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jefferson23]

46. Inhumanity at Quantico

By Scott Horton

Bradley Manning, an American soldier under suspicion of having leaked classified and sensitive information to WikiLeaks, has been in prison since May, 2010. His conditions of confinement are increasingly strange and defy comparison with standards applied to the incarceration even of violent and self-destructive service personnel—and by all accounts Manning is neither; he is a model prisoner. Most recently, his captors acknowledge in the face of media inquiries that Manning is subject to a strictly enforced nudity regimen.

In response to concerns about these reports, Department of Defense spokesmen have insisted that Manning is “being treated just like every other detainee in the brig.” They have responded to questions about the enforced nudity regime by stating that “the circumstances required that his clothing be removed as a precaution to ensure that he didn’t harm himself.” But Manning’s treatment bears no comparison with that of other prisoners at Quantico, and the idea that enforced nudity is appropriate as a special suicide regime for a prisoner classified by the camp psychiatrist as non-suicidal is equally suspect.

Manning’s special regime raises concerns that abusive techniques adopted by the Bush Administration for use on alleged terrorists are being applied to a U.S. citizen and soldier. Classified Defense Department documents furnish an alternative explanation for the use of enforced nudity: “In addition to degradation of the detainee, stripping can be used to demonstrate the omnipotence of the captor or to debilitate the detainee.” Other documents detail how enforced nudity and the isolation techniques being applied to Manning can be used to prepare the prisoner to be more submissive to interrogators in connection with questioning.

Department of Defense General Counsel Jeh Johnson, speaking to the New York City Bar Association last week, acknowledged the concerns raised about Manning’s detention and stated that he had personally traveled to Quantico to conduct an investigation. However, Johnson was remarkably unforthcoming about what he discovered and what conclusions he drew from his visit. Hopefully Johnson is giving careful thought to the gravity of the deviation from accepted U.S. practices that the Manning case presents. Under established rules of international humanitarian law, the detention practices that a state adopts for its own soldiers are acceptable standards for use by a foreign power detaining that state’s soldiers in wartime. So by creating a “special regime” for Bradley Manning, the Department of Defense is also authorizing all the bizarre practices to which he is being subject to be applied to American soldiers, sailors, and airmen taken prisoner in future conflicts. This casual disregard for the rights of American service personnel could have terrible ramifications in the future. The recent dismissal and replacement of the Quantico brig commander may well reflect a critical attitude within the Pentagon towards the special regime for Manning, but more recent developments, including the regime of enforced nudity, offset that.

This weekend tens of thousands of pro-democracy demonstrators in Egypt stormed the headquarters of the Mubarak regime’s secret police in Alexandria and Cairo—flooding the Internet with pictures of the cells and torture devices used there. Leaders of the effort said their raid was undertaken to preserve evidence of the mistreatment of prisoners so that appropriate measures could be taken for accountability in the future. Around the world, the outcry against this regime of torture and terror is rising and fueling massive public uprisings–as we see today in Bahrain, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, and Yemen. This movement was spurred in part by WikiLeaks disclosures that helped lay bare the corruption and venality of these regimes. The brig commander at Quantico should consider carefully whether it is really wise to deal with a young whistleblower by using watered-down versions of the tools of tyrannical oppression with which regimes like Mubarak, Ben Ali, and Qaddafi are so closely associated.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/03/hbc-90008012

[Clio the Leo]

52. .

[Clio the Leo]

53. This article is a week old and now contains outdated information...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1365493/Pentagon-tells-Obama-Bradley-Mannings-prison-treatment-appropriate--gets-just-hour-outside-cell.html

[Jefferson23]

61. For one, the Daily Mail is a tabloid UK publication and I think you

missed the legal concerns Horton has discussed..that it's from a week ago changes nothing.

[Bluenorthwest]

62. Ah, so truth becomes outdated? Is that why the 'I'm a Christian'

President has set aside the teachings that say how we treat prisoners is how we treat Jesus, and that those who neglect or fail to visit them are going to hell? That is an old article too? Funny, isn't it, that when some wish to slander minorities they don't like, they rush to quote a few words from the Bible, but when it comes to such things as torture, theft, the treatment of the least among us, suddenly the Bible is worthless, out of date.
What do you think about the 'I was in prison, and you visited me not' segment from Jesus? In what way was he incorrect, in what way was Jesus so wrong, and Obama so right? Manning is a short drive from the WH, and yet Obama asks about him, he visits him not.

[boppers]

50. Here's a thought:

Maybe being forced to sleep naked isn't classified as torture, but it should be?

Something about the Manning threads that has annoyed me is the drumbeat which equated being chilly with some of the worst depravity mankind has created, but perhaps the bar should be set higher?

[micraphone]

51. This OP is missing something I think

A sarcasm thingy....??????

Anyone?

He hasn't been convicted of anything.

[midnight]

54. I wonder why you say this?

Maybe cuz it's not your husband, brother, uncle, daughter, etc.... Treating people like this is wrong.... This piece reminds me of those who say that the extermination of the Jews was a story that exaggerated the facts. I visited one of the traveling holocaust museums. The guide on this tour indicated that he and his young friends were told by their captors that they were to clime a tall ladder and jump off it... They jumped off and would break limbs or worse... I suppose by your standards this is just an uncomfortable situation and does not rise to the level of torture. However I hope you have the decency not to defend it.... And I wish you would not defend this behavior toward Bradley Manning, because it is wrong....

[boppers]

55. How many limbs has Manning broken?

Please be specific.

[Jeneral2885]

56. i agree

partly

[Avant Guardian]

57. The UN disagrees with you

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

Definition of torture
Article 1 of the Convention defines torture as:
Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

– Convention Against Torture, Article 1.1

Actions which fall short of torture may still constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 16.

[Travelman]

83. They're not extracting a confession

Sorry, but your citation falls flat because of these words:

"...or such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person...."


Not happening. Manning has already basically confessed. The purpose for him being stripped of his clothing is so that he can't kill himself, not to make him cough up a confession or otherwise to intimidate him.

[jeremyfive]

58. Personally, I'm mad as hell about some of what documents revealed.

How can we encourage a legitimate multi-national meeting of the minds, if we are spying and cheating with respect to UN members, as was revealed in the Wikileaks documents? This was the greater sin.

The truth stands for all to see in an open society. The United States should be doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that does not bear scrutiny by the world community.

If we do not take leadership on truth and honesty, how can we expect this from the rest of the world?

Manning is a kid who had made a terrible mistake. But it IS important to know what our leaders are doing with our tax dollars that we taxpayers pay for. And I am not pleased with the revelations. Not at all. Nor the torture.

Manning still has constitutional rights--Dubya illegal torture or no Dubya illegal torture. He has as yet been convicted of nothing.

A difficult situation, but one that is not helped by breaking the treaties we signed or falling yet again to Abu Grehaib style barbarism.

[Bluenorthwest]

60. I see not one cite of law in your statement.

Just a stream of words unsupported by any precedent or statute. Why is that?

[LanternWaste]

64. Waterboarding is just college pranks...

"Waterboarding is just college pranks..."

I imagine the definitions of what torture is or is not is predicated wholly on what better validates your own opinions... much as was the quote I posted.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tiggeroshii]

66. Are you aware of how many times you spelled "definitely" wrong?

[BlueIris]

67. I bet you wouldn't think that if it were happening to you. Or your relatives.

The ignorance and lack of empathy in the OP is astounding.

[truth2power]

71. "Hell, I've slept naked numerous times"...

Don Rumsfeld, is that you? Or are you both just reading from the same playbook?

Are you aware that that is the same excuse Rummy used when confronted with the issue of prisoners at abu Ghraib forced to stand for hours on end? He tried to minimize and normalize it by relating how he stands, all day, behind some sort of lectern, while doing his work.

ONE IS NOT LIKE THE OTHER. :eyes:

[BlueRidgeProgressive]

72. The rack is torture. Waterboarding is not torture.

Very unpleasant, sure, but that doesn't make it torture.

[Avant Guardian]

73. I cant believe someone is dredging up that old RW meme

[polichick]

79. Excuses like this are absurd - we didn't vote for another Bush. nt

[Avant Guardian]

80. Minimisation is just another form of denial

Minimisation is a type of deception involving denial coupled with rationalisation in situations where complete denial is implausible.

This was the Bush administration tack for dealt with accusations of torture, war crimes, etc.

[Phx_Dem]

85. Agree 100! Manning is exactly where he should be and he's not being tortured.

Nor is anyone else.