How long are Democrats going to give Obama a pass on Private Manning?

[markpkessinger]

In the last couple of days, the Army has admitted it cannot link Private Bradley Manning to the items published by Wikileaks. It has further admitted that an officer at Quantico has abused his authority in placing Private Manning on suicide watch without medical authorization, meaning he is confined to his cell 24 hours a day, stripped of his clothing and eyeglasses. This in addition to having been held in solitary confinement for SIX MONTHS without having been charged with a crime. When asked about the matter, Robert Gibbs referred questioners to the "authorities that are holding him" (as if the administration has no knowledge of what is going on).

President Obama is the Commander in Chief of the Military, and thus the treatment of Private Manning falls squarely on his shoulders. My question is this: how long do we Democrats remain silent about this? This represents an abuse of power that ranks right up there with some of the worst of Nixon's abuses. Yet much of the party is stone cold silent. What the hell is wrong with us?

[spanone]

1. what's the frequency, kenneth?

[markpkessinger]

2. I don't get your reference

Sorry, but it's a bit cryptic. What are you talking about?

[WinkyDink]

13. Dan Rather.

[markpkessinger]

16. I guess I'm dense, but you're still being far too cryptic for me

[zorahopkins]

71. Don't Forget REM

I still like that song.

[emulatorloo]

3. That object is very shiny

[emulatorloo]

4. Link? n/t

[markpkessinger]

6. Here are two . . .

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41241414/ns/us_news-wikileaks_in_security/41244023

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2011/01/25/cnn-military-investigating-why-brig-commander-put-bradley-manning-on-suicide-watch/">http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2011/01/25/cnn-military-investigating-why-brig-commander-put-bradley-manning-on-suicide-watch/

[emulatorloo]

9. Thank you, I will check out the MSNBC one.

Heading off to SOTU watching now, Will read it later. I do appreciate it.

[Demeter]

5. Too Long. He'll Have to Die to Get Their Attention.

[Ramulux]

7. Forever

[markpkessinger]

8. The relative silence is deafening.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. Sssshhh!! Torture is fashionable again under the new Boss(D).

[Pterodactyl]

40. Ha! I guess it is more "Underground" than "Democratic" around here nowadays!

[sabrina 1]

11. Until someone restores the rule of law in this country

no one in either party is going to protect a soldier who saw crimes when he sent to Iraq and tried to report them.

We are in Orwell's upside down world. Reporting war crimes should be considered keeping your oath and someone who does so should be honored.

But we do not live in a law-abiding society anymore. The Geneva Conventions, the Constitution, all of our treaties on human rights are no longer observed.

The Wikileaks Cables revealed how the U.S. despises the European Court of Human Rights. I used to think we would be the biggest supporters of such an entity.

The Cables also revealed how this president interfered in the Spanish court's attempt to prosecute six of Bush's torturers, protecting them from prosecution.

So, would a president who protects war criminals, intervene on behalf of someone who exposed them?

Manning will have to look to the very same Human Rights orgs we now know are despised by the U.S. and to decent people everywhere, to try to stop the abuse he has been subjected to.

I believe they want us to know how he is being treated in order to dissuade other good soldiers from even thinking about doing what is right, reporting war crimes.

[snot]

46. +1; and

the WL cables revealed that the U.S. dismissed British objections about secret U.S. spy flights taking place from the UK, amid British officials' concerns that the UK would be deemed an accomplice to torture; and that, in response to U.S. pressure, the German government assured the U.S. that it would not follow through on its investigation of the CIA's abduction of a German citizen mistakenly identified as a terrorist, Khaled el-Masri; and that the U.S. threatened the Italian government in order to make sure that no international arrest warrants were issued for CIA agents accused of involvement in the abduction of cleric Abu Omar . . .

[markpkessinger]

70. History will not judge this Presidency kindly when it comes to human rights

Well said, thank you, Sabrina. Whatever accomplishments this President may achieve, I believe history will not be terribly forgiving about his refusal to deal with the issue of war crimes by the previous administration and his continuance and even furtherance of that administration's most egregious policies.

[sabrina 1]

12. Rec'd although

we apparently have some torture supporters here also.

[markpkessinger]

14. Yes -- my post had two recs that mysteriously disappeared

[Catherina]

44. Just gave one back to you. You asked an important question

but I've come not to expect much from this new party.

[Recursion]

19. Yes, obviously unrecing this thread means you support torture

:eyes:

[TheKentuckian]

26. Plausibly for sure. Not necessarily probable but within the realm of reasonable possibility

[Recursion]

32. This is why I never unrec

I don't want to contribute to the wailing.

[msanthrope]

15. Um dude. He was charged. With crimes. In July. If you are a supporter of his,

then I am surprised you have not noted his 'charge sheet' posted on his website....

Try HARDER NEXT TIME!!!!!

[markpkessinger]

17. He was detained -- not formally charged

He has NOT been formally charged.

[msanthrope]

21. Really? So the CHARGE SHEET---is just a fabrication? Best tell his lawyer....who thinks he's been

charged. Shit--his pre-trial hearings are scheduled for next month....


http://www.scribd.com/doc/33963920/Charge-Sheet-Redacted-Manning

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/06/bradley-manning-charged-iraq-killings-video

[cliffordu]

30. Yep - forged by the same people that forged his birth certificate.

[msanthrope]

33. Put Orly Taitz on the case......n/t

[cliffordu]

34. Orly!!!! RAT NOW!!!!!

[markpkessinger]

39. I stand partially corrected

But what he was charged with was transferring the video (of a war crime, I might add) to Wikileaks. Reporting a war crime is NOT a crime, and overrides any "classified" status. But now, the Army has admitted it cannot link Manning to the Wikileaks publication of the video. So where does that leave these "charges?"

[hack89]

62. There were thousands of classified documents

that were not related to war crimes. If he only stole and released the single vidio, I might have some sympathy.

He is going to prison for a very long time and deservedly so.

[Recursion]

23. Where does this BS come from? Who invents it?

He has been charged. The charges have been filed. They're available for the public to see.

[markpkessinger]

42. The charges say that...

...Manning illegally transferred the infamous video documenting war crimes by U.S. soldiers to Wikileaks. Yet the Army now admits it cannot establish any link between Manning and Wikileaks. So who's making up things here?

[PBS Poll-435]

58. ROFL

He kinda konfessed.



:rofl:

[PBS Poll-435]

57. On a pretty lake in the woods next to a campfire and a puppy shows up to warm your feet

That's where this shit comes from.

[sabrina 1]

35. Charged or not we are not supposed to

treat people inhumanely in this country. Yes, I know, now that Democrats have gone silent about such abuses it's not something we like to make too big of a fuss over.

Charged does not mean convicted. There are many, many people here and around the world who view Manning as a hero.

He reported war crimes, he was told to 'stfu'. He decided not to. I KNOW we live in a country where doing the right thing, trying to stop things like torture etc, are considered crimes, while people who torture and order assassinations etc are heroes, but if you don't mind, a few of us never changed our minds about those issues, just because Bush is gone. Manning to me, from what I know so far, is a hero. As was Daniel Ellsberg who also considers him a hero.

[markpkessinger]

41. Precisely

And in any case, since the original "charges" centered on Manning's alleged transfer of the infamous video to Wikileaks, and the Army now admits it cannot establish any link between Manning and Wikileaks, where does that leave these spurious charges?

[sabrina 1]

49. Good question, in fact that is a very good question ~

You should ask it in an OP, and if you do, PM me so I do not miss it. There may be some lawyers here who could answer the question.

[hack89]

63. Here is his online confession

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/wikileaks-chat/

Regardless of his motives he is an idiot.

[markpkessinger]

65. And here is Greenwald's take

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/29/wired_1

[hack89]

66. That's why we have investigations

someone will figure it all eventually. One thing you need to realize is that it will not be hard for a skill IT forensic investigator to figure exactly what Manning did regardless of his efforts to hide his tracks.

[markpkessinger]

67. That may all be true . . .

But the point I was making in starting this discussion was fundamentally not about Manning's guilt or innocence of any crime. It was about the grotesquely punitive treatment he is receiving at the hands of the government, prior to trial and conviction of anything{/em]. As I said elsewhere in this thread, we either have due process or we don't. Solitary confinement for 7.5 months is torture by any standard, and its long-term effects are well-documented. Throughout most of the civilized world, it is considered far too damaging to be used except in the most extreme circumstances, and even then only for the shortest possible duration. The punishment is widely used in this country's prison system, and the manner in which it is employed is a human rights travesty. The fact that it is occurring in the case of a political prisoner who has yet to be tried or convicted of anything, and that this is happening under a Democratic administration, should be a source of outrage and shame for all good Democrats.

[sabrina 1]

87. All heroes seem like idiots in their times to some people.

I know I would not have the courage to do what he did, knowing the consequences. But, he apparently did know the consequences but was not going to watch and participate in war crimes, which he was being asked to do and which violated his oath, without trying to do something about it.

A vast majority of human beings would never have the guts to take a risk like. It has never been a majority of the people who rose up against tyranny, eg, it's always been a very small number of people. So, yes, you can call him an idiot, he wouldn't be the first to be called that. I've read some of the things Ben Franklin and Jefferson and Washington were called by the British, idiot would have been kind.

He had morals, and in the society we live in, I suppose you could say it was idiotic to think you could act on principle and be rewarded for that. Which is of course what should have happened when he first reported the war crimes he had witnessed. Instead, he was told to STFU. Why do you call the person with prinicples 'idiotic', but have nothing to say about the torturers and the murderers and rapists?

On the good side, Manning has far more supporters than I ever thought he would have so some people recognize what he did for what it was.

[EFerrari]

43. Pre trial punishment is illegal.

[Recursion]

18. "Without authorization" is misleading

He's perfectly well authorized to do that, he just doesn't have medical advice to do it.

And I'll give him a "pass" until I have some reason to believe he was involved with the decision making process here.

[markpkessinger]

Wow.

If a GOP President were doing this, we would ALL be rightly outraged. Double standards much?

[Recursion]

22. I find the conditions of Manning's captivity vindictive and petty

Comparing them to torture is absurd.

[markpkessinger]

24. Do you have any clue what solitary confinement does to a person?

Long-term solitary confinement is one of the worst abuses of human rights that can be inflicted on a person. Ask any psychiatric professional who has studied the matter: it creates long-lasting damaging to one's psychological well-being.

[Recursion]

25. Oh yeah...

...it's right up there with beating the soles of his feet and attaching electrodes to his genitals :eyes:

[markpkessinger]

28. So destroying a person's mind is any less horrible?

[WillyT]

20. Time Will Tell...

:shrug:

[Pterodactyl]

27. "Six months without being charged with a crime"?

Manning was arrested on 5/26/10 and was charged was charged on 7/5/10. Sounds more like six weeks.

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

[markpkessinger]

29. I stand corrected about his being charged...

But he has not been convicted of anything, thus the punitive measures being taken against him are totally unjustified.

[Pterodactyl]

37. It is not unusual for the accused to remain in jail while awaiting trial.

I wish it was different, but trials take a while in modern America. Heck, the Tuscon killer was captured red handed at the scene, and that's not going to trial for months. A complex espionage case is going to take a while. If he's innocent and did not mishandle any classified materials, he'll be let go.

[markpkessinger]

38. His detention is not the issue...

It is being held in solitary confinement for a solid six months that is the problem.

[Pterodactyl]

51. He gets out one hour a day.

He also can communicate with other prisoners and guards. And he has been able to have visitors. I don't see what the big deal is.

[EFerrari]

53. No. He is taken to another room in shackles and his "exercise"

is walking figure eights for an hour.

He has been able to see his lawyer and one visitor once a week. Last weekend, Quantico found a way to deny that one visitor.

Do you have any evidence he can communicate with other prisoners? I've seen none.

The big deal is, it is illegal to punish people BEFORE their trial just as it is illegal to have a prisoner in a lengthy, abusive detention before going to trial.

[Pterodactyl]

81. It's not punishment until after conviction.

Being in jail before trial sucks, but that's the way that it goes. The lawyers have so screwed up the justice system that every trial takes forever. I wish it wasn't that way, but I don't think we can change it at this point.

[markpkessinger]

83. From the Uniform Code of Military Justice

“813. ART. 13 PUNISHMENT PROHIBITED BEFORE TRIAL
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. ”



Clearly, the UCMJ contemplated the possibility of confinement in conditions that were "more rigorous than the circumstances required to insure his presence." Otherwise they wouldn't have included that language.

[EFerrari]

86. What? Yes, his conditions are abusive and it is exactly pre-trial punishment

which is illegal under the UCMJ.

[Pterodactyl]

82. A spokesman quoted by the New York Times says so.

Do you have any evidence he has not communicated with guards, prisoners or visitors?

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

[Lurks Often]

59. If you put Manning in general population you take the chance of him

being killed or injured and then everybody will start screaming that he was murdered to prevent him from testifying.

[markpkessinger]

72. You are presenting a false choice

The prison industry would like us all to believe there are only two choices: put someone in general population or lock them down 23 hours a day. They are doing this to punish Manning in advance of trial. End of story.

[Lurks Often]

74. We're not going to agree on this

I happen to believe if Manning ends up in general population, he'll be hurt or killed before he reaches trial. I also happen to think that Manning is considered a traitor by the majority of his fellow prisoners and that there are a few that would very much like to hurt him.

[markpkessinger]

73. From the Uniform Code of Military Justice

“813. ART. 13 PUNISHMENT PROHIBITED BEFORE TRIAL
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. ”

[Karmadillo]

31. Probably as long as the Democrats are going to give Obama a pass on war crimes.

nt

[markpkessinger]

69. Sadly, yes.

[krabigirl]

78. Bingo.

[markpkessinger]

36. I suggest you all catch up on Greenwald's reporting on this

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/01/25/various_matters/index.html

[snot]

45. He's been in solitary for oever 7.5 mos.

[mzmolly]

47. So you think Obama should release a person who leaked

classified information?

Abuse of power? :rofl:

[EFerrari]

48. His detention has been so abusive that the UN Special Rapporteur

for Torture has begun an investigation. In fact, they may have to release him because what they are doing is illegal and grounds for dismissal.

UN to investigate treatment of jailed leaks suspect Bradley Manning
Office of rapporteur on torture confirms it is looking into complaint made by Manning supporter


The United Nations is investigating a complaint on behalf of Bradley Manning that he is being mistreated while held since May in US Marine Corps custody pending trial. The army private is charged with the unauthorised use and disclosure of classified information, material related to the WikiLeaks, and faces a court martial sometime in 2011.

The office of Manfred Nowak, special rapporteur on torture based in Geneva, received the complaint from a Manning supporter; his office confirmed that it was being looked into. Manning's supporters say that he is in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day; this could be construed as a form of torture. This month visitors reported that his mental and physical health was deteriorating.

The Pentagon denies the former intelligence analyst is mistreated, saying he is treated the same as other prisoners at Quantico, Virginia, is able to exercise, and has access to newspapers and visitors.

He was charged in July with leaking classified material including video posted by WikiLeaks of a 2007 US attack in Baghdad by a Apache helicopter that killed a Reuters news photographer and his driver. He is also suspected of leaking other material to the website, which is posting more than 250,000 secret state department cables. Manning has not commented on whether he is the source.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/23/un-treatment-leaks-bradley-manning

[sabrina 1]

50. It is interesting that he is only 'suspected' of leaking the

other material. So the only charge against him is for leaking the helicopter video, and that was a war crime in action, so I would think he did the right thing by releasing that.

I think he probably did leak the war logs. Because that was why he was so upset, the revelations in those logs about the Iraqis being handed over detainees who the U.S. knew they were abusing. He reported it and was told to shut up about it.

I hope they do have to release him and if the military says everyone else is being treated the same way, then they may have to release them also.

[mzmolly]

52. Supposedly his detention is not unusual.

This is abhorrent. However, that doesn't mean the President will have him released from prison or that Democrats should take up the mantle of releasing a potential traitor.

Let me say, I've never understood the notion that Asange is a hero, while Manning is allowed to rot in Prison. I did not understand Michael Moore giving money to Asange for doing what amounts to nothing, while "progressives" - including Asanage, ignored Mr. Manning. But to suggest that Democrats should treat Manning like a hero for leaking classified information is absurd. Should we examine how ALL detainees are treated? ABSOLUTELY.

[EFerrari]

54. The administration has botched this case so badly

they may wind up having to release Brad Manning.

[uponit7771]

55. You didn't answer the question, this person allegedly gave SOMEONE some classified docs...

...who he gave them too is irrelevant.

If he gave no one anything classified and the army admitted to that I would be disgusted but this sounds like more pout rage.

This person shouldn't be held in solitaire for the reasons given though, this sounds like cruel and unusual punishment and that by itself seems like ground for dismissal if it were in a civilian court.

[EFerrari]

60. Regardless of who he is, you should be outraged that an American citizen

is being held in punitive pre-trial detention with no trial date in site. This kind of detention turns your brain into oatmeal and causes permanent damage.

His lawyer has a case for dismissal.

[uponit7771]

56. More pout-rage, Manning allegedly gave classified docs to SOMEONE and that's the illegal act

[markpkessinger]

64. The key word is "allegedly"

An allegation of conduct for which one has neither been tried nor convicted does not form a legal basis on which to exact punishment on an individual, least of all solitary confinement for 7.5 months. We either have due process in this country or we don't; and if we don't, it's time people begin to wake up.

[EFerrari]

75. Objecting to torture is "poutrage" on your planet?

Even the Marines are doing better than that. They've replaced the commander in charge of his detention.

Good grief.

[okieinpain]

61. private manning is going to be spending a long time in jail, and

I do not feel sorry for him.

[markpkessinger]

68. So I take it then that you...

...think Daniel Ellsberg likewise should have spent a "long time in prison?"

[grahamhgreen]

77. So, he's guilty before trial?

[krabigirl]

79. He hasn't been convicted of anything.

[grahamhgreen]

76. There is no Private Manning.

:sarcasm:

[flvegan]

80. How long are Democrats going to give Obama, et al a pass on Bush/Cheney war crimes?

Yeah, I know. I can't help myself.

[markpkessinger]

85. I agree 100%

And in fact, I go a little further in saying that so long as the Obama Administration turns its back on war crimes of the prior administration, it is participating in a cover-up, which is also a violation of international law if I'm not mistaken.

Not, of course, that laws mean all that much these days.

[LostInAnomie]

84. Meh...

I don't care.