Bradley Manning's Attorney: He Has Now Been Denied Visits by Rep. Kucinich and Amnesty & UN Reps.

[Hissyspit]

@GregMitch
Greg Mitchell
Bradley Manning's attorney: He has now been denied visits by Rep. Kucinich and Amnesty and UN reps. http://bit.ly/igl1QW

http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/2011/04/brig-fails-to-follow-its-own-rules.html

07 april 2011

Brig Fails to Follow Its Own Rules

Over the past few weeks, the defense has been working to facilitate an official visit for Congressman Dennis Kucinich, Mr. Juan Mendez (the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture), and a representative from Amnesty International. Despite multiple inquires from the defense and the interested parties, the Quantico Brig and the Government have denied the requests for an "official visit."

The Quantico Brig Order P1640.1C, paragraph 3.17 allows two types of visitors for a detainee, "authorized" and "official." The difference between them is described here in the Brig rule. The defense maintains that the critical distinction between the two is that official visits are privileged and not subject to Brig monitoring.

The Government's position is that the above individuals are not entitled to an official visit because none of these individuals are conducting "official government business." Because the Government refuses to allow these visits to take place as an official visit, it indicates that it will generously interpret the provisions with respect to "authorized visits." In particular, it will permit an authorized visit with PFC Manning despite the fact that none of these individuals had "established a proper relationship with the prisoner prior to confinement" as required under the Brig rule. Such an authorized visit, of course, will be subject to Brig monitoring and can be used as evidence against PFC Manning in a court-martial proceeding.
posted by army court-martial defense specialist at 11:24 am

[Angry Dragon]

1. Shame on this country

[msanthrope]

13. Why? Read the OP--they are allowed to visit.

They are not entitled to an official visit, but an authorized one.

[Bragi]

2. Obama's message to future whistleblowers:

If you want to be a whistleblower like Bradley Manning, and release evidence of war crimes, we can and will torture you mercilessly, and no law will stop us.

[TheWraith]

7. Right, because being in jail is torture.

You devalue the word by saying that not being allowed an extra pillow is torture.

[Bragi]

8. You reveal yourself by pretending its about pillows /nt

[TheWraith]

14. I'm simply tired of the hyperbole.

It's not torture to have to sleep in your underwear. It's not torture to be on suicide watch after making a reference to killing yourself. And it's not torture to only have ten hours a day during which you can sleep. It's called prison. Being unpleasant does not mean that it's torture.

[msanthrope]

17. But it is torture to have Dennis Kucinich visit!!!

And he does get to visit, just not as an 'official' visit.

[Wait Wut]

26. +1

Why is Kuch trying to visit, anyway? Hmmmmm...trying to earn some brownie points, I would assume.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

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

[dsc]

105. because he is ranking Dem on the subcommittee in charge of

military prisons but other than that no real reason.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[former9thward]

117. And the government says it will monitor and use anything

Manning says in the visit against him in court. No lawyer in his right mind would authorize a visit under those conditions. It would be malpractice.

[msanthrope]

119. Yes. Just like every other prison visit in the country. There's no

privacy in prison, and no confidentiality, except with your attorney or confessor.

Your Miranda warnings apply, always.

[Bragi]

22. Nope, it's what the CIA calls "slow torture"

There are lots of online resources that explain this, but I think you already know that.

If not, google is your friend.

[msanthrope]

24. I agree that the visit from DK will be slow torture. n/t

[Bragi]

29. Real hilarious topic, eh? /nt

[msanthrope]

42. The inability of some DUers to read the 2nd paragraph is indeed amusing. n/t

[sabrina 1]

63. D you support the Bush administration's abuse of Constitutional rights

granted to the accused in our Constitution?

Kucinich btw, is one of the best members of Congress, he is a Democrat who stands up consistently for Democratic priniciples. Your comments have been without substance so far. Can you add some substance and clarify what it is you object to about a U.S. Congressman doing his duty?

And how about the UN and Amnesty International? Is it torture to have a visit from them also?

[msanthrope]

66. Which constitutional right is being violated? Be specific. n/t

[sabrina 1]

78. You have to ask?

The right not to be abused. Geneva Conventions. The right to not be treated in a cruel and unusual manner, AFTER conviction. And the right to a presumption of innocence of course.

[msanthrope]

88. Monitoring prison visits violates none of these rights. n/t

[sabrina 1]

101. When a defendent's attorney claims the defendent is

being tortured, and a U.S. Congressman asks to visit that defendent to deternmine if a crime is being committed against him, then it is not only violating his rights, it is violating all of our rights.

[msanthrope]

103. Show me where the defendant's attorney claims 'torture.' Because I read the 138 complaint, and

that term simply does not appear.

[sabrina 1]

107. His attorney claims he is being abused. A U.S. Congressmember

has asked to visit Manning to determine whether or not this is true. He has been denied. So have others, and visitors to Manning have been subjected to refusals and harassment by the government.

Now we know for sure, his attorney and his family and friends are correct.

Sometimes actions speak louder than words.

Any conviction of Manning now will be laughable at this point.

One of his friends who has visited him stated that he has 'become almost catatonic'.

I fail to see why you support Bush policies on the treatment of detainees.

If they had nothing to hide, they would not be working so hard to hide it.

[msanthrope]

109. So I am correct---his attorney is NOT claiming torture, then? Show us where Coombs claims 'abuse.'

Now, Dennis can visit, and he will be treated like any other visitor. And Amnesty can visit, and so can the UN.

and just look at what you wrote---

"One of his friends who has visited him stated that he has 'become almost catatonic'."

If he has a friend visiting, then his friends aren't being denied to him, are they?

[sabrina 1]

111. His friend has been harrassed and has been kept from visiting

Again you are defending the government from allegations of torture and mistreatment of a detainee. Why are you doing that?

[msanthrope]

118. The friend who went to Quantico with an unregistered car and no proof of insurance? He fixed that,

didn't he? He's visiting Bradley Manning, right?

Again, I've asked you to quote where Mr. Manning's attorney alleges torture. Can you?

And if Manning's own attorney isn't alleging torture, then kindly tell us why you know better.

[sabrina 1]

122. 'Degrading and humiliating' treatment violates the

Common Art. 111 of the Geneva Conventions on how detainees are to be treated. If this country's military cannot abide by those laws, and if there are actually U.S. citizens defending this kind of treatment, this country is lost.

Stop with your excuses. I watched what happened that day. Those trying to visit Manning were prevented from seeing him for NO REASON.

From Manning's attorney:

The Truth Behind Quantico Brig's Decision to Strip PFC Manning

The Brig's treatment of PFC Manning is shameful. It is made even more so by the Brig hiding behind concerns for " Manning's privacy." There is no justification, and there can be no justification, for treating a detainee in this degrading and humiliating manner.

He chose the language used in Common Art. 111 of the Geneva Conventions.

And, if the world had not been watching, they would have as they stated, continued that shameful abusive treatment. The very fact that they stopped, once they were exposed, and even someone like P.J. Crowley finally found his voice and spoke out about it, demonstrates how wrong it was and how wrong they knew it was, otherwise they would still be doing it, wouldn't they, and who knows what else would have happened to him if there were not decent Americans and people around the world, watching them.

Read the comments attached to that article. People are outraged at what this country has become. Anyone who cares about this country will not in any way defend this kind of criminal behavior. We look like the Old Soviet Union to the rest of the world. And you are attempting to defend it?? I asked you why, but you have not answered.

[msanthrope]

125. So I was right? His attorney isn't claiming 'torture' or 'abuse?'

And again, I'm going to challenge you to cite precisely where his attorney claims that Mr. Manning's rights under the Geneva Convention have been violated.***

Not a blogpost that you think sounds familiar because it sounds like something in your (unquoted) Geneva Conventions.

You are 0 for 2 in quoting Manning's attorney. I suspect you will be 0 for 3. You might want to read the Article 138 and its supplement at Coombs' website, to get a handle on what his attorney IS arguing.

Since you've failed to assert a single claim that his attorney has made, I don't have to defend anything.

Now, you wrote:

"I watched what happened that day. Those trying to visit Manning were prevented from seeing him for NO REASON." Really? You were there when Jane Hamsher tried to drive a unregistered vehicle onto a US Marine base? Do tell.


***(I'm going to gloss over the fact that you still haven't explained just how you came to the conclusion that the GC applies to Manning. Let's just run with your hypo--it's fun!)

[sabrina 1]

149. The GC are part of the laws of this land. They set a standard

that the U.S. CLAIMS to live up to. Are you saying the U.S. does not have to live up to those standards anymore??

Blogspot?? You didn't read the link, did you?

Why are you so desperately defending the torture of a U.S. by our own military?

As for the Geneval Conventions, google it. Since you do not read links, I don't see the point in providing them for you.

I'd love to know why you are defending the U.S. military refusing to provide the same humanitarian standards that are part of the laws of this land, to a U.S. soldier. So far you are avoiding answering that question. You have provided nothing to explain your support for the abuse of detainees by the U.S. Military.

[msanthrope]

153. Again, can you cite a claim from the man's attorney that supports your contention?

If his attorney is claiming a violation of the Geneva Convention, I'd be interested in reading it. So far--

I've asked you to cite where his attorney claimed 'torture.' You couldn't.

I've asked you to cite where his attorney claimed 'abuse.' You couldn't.

I've asked you to cite where his attorney claimed 'violation of the Geneva Conventions.' You couldn't.


Until you state an actual claim, what would I be defending????

You've got to do the bare minimum---

[sabrina 1]

157. So, you refuse to condemn Bush policies regarding the detention

of prisoners in this country. I won't waste any more time asking you why. Your attempts to make it seem like you have no idea what has been going on are so transparent as to be almost funny.

The treatment of Bradley Manning violates every principle this country claims to stand for. It's your problem if you want to continue to defend it.

[truth2power]

137. Some of the posts on this thread sound very much like the excuse

given by Don Rumsfeld when confronted about the abuse of prisoners at abu Ghraib - being put in stress positions. He compared it to his standing at a lectern all day while he works.

One is not like the other. :eyes:

[msanthrope]

139. Can you name a single instance of 'abuse' that his lawyer is claiming happened?

There is a 138 complaint and supplemental filings at Coombs' website.

Can you name a single instance where Coombs is claiming Manning was subject to 'abuse?'

[truth2power]

156. Don't be deliberately obtuse...

"Standing" at a desk, of one's own volition, isn't torture. Being forced to "stand" in a stress position for hours on end is. there's 'standing" and then there's "standing".

"jail" is not the same as solitary confinement - for months on end.

This is not about pillows.

Sleeping in one's underwear can be quite comfortable if one elects to do so. If one is forced, that is another matter.

i stand by what I said about Rummy's little attempt to minimize abuse and torture.

[Cid_B]

127. So what is your point...

I see no abuse. I see nothing cruel and unusual. He is in a military prison and , as per his lawyer, made references to suicide. WTF do you expect?

Not sure what you mean about the presumption of innocence. Should we just let him wander the streets until he is convicted?

[Bragi]

128. Talk about lack of compassion or a sense of justice /nt

[Cid_B]

130. I have no compassion...

... for traitorous pieces of filth like Manning. Justice would involve him breaking big rocks into small ones for the next 80 years.

I hope he rots.

[Bragi]

138. Because he exposed war crimes? /nt

[msanthrope]

140. What war crimes were exposed when he leaked the global server addresses of the US Command in Iraq?

Just tell me how that action exposed war crimes.

[Bragi]

142. Is this the war crime you wish had not been exposed?

5th April 2010 10:44 EST WikiLeaks has released a classified US military video depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad -- including two Reuters news staff.

Reuters has been trying to obtain the video through the Freedom of Information Act, without success since the time of the attack. The video, shot from an Apache helicopter gun-sight, clearly shows the unprovoked slaying of a wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers. Two young children involved in the rescue were also seriously wounded.

http://www.collateralmurder.com/

[msanthrope]

144. Are you conceding that the Army is correct? Manning is the leaker?

Tell me, did the UN investigate and call this a war crime?

[Bragi]

148. Just seeing if the poster thinks that might be a war crime

I know from your earlier posts that you probably think the videos are amusing, but I was wondering if the other poster considered this kind of thing a war crime.

http://www.collateralmurder.com/

[Cid_B]

151. No problems here...

Maybe not the best idea to embed oneself with a group that wanders the street carrying RPGs...

[Bragi]

154. Ah, I get it /nt

[sabrina 1]

160. What utter nonsense. He did not 'make reference to suicide'

He was pointing out that IF he was suicidal, and it has been established that he is not, he could have done it long ago. And they were just looking for yet another way to make his stay there as horrific as they could. In fact he was denying he was suicidal which everyone, including them, knows.

So, what's YOUR point? There were ways, IF they were worried about him, (and please don't make people laugh), to take care of it in a legal and humane way.

Oddly enough they suddenly discovered those ways AFTER the worldwide outrage by decent people everywhere, including his family.

So, how do you explain that?

[_ed_]

132. Gotta love DU these days

Not only are we defending torture, we're shitting on one of the only actual progressives in Congress, DK. This is a liberal site, right? Hard to tell these days.

[CreekDog]

102. You say you're tired of the hyperbole right after saying Manning thing is over a pillow

:wtf:

[readmoreoften]

113. +1

[Name removed]

112. Deleted message

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

[truth2power]

126. Yes, s/he does. eom

[Webster Green]

16. Disgusting post.

You can't be serious.

Extra pillow? :wtf:

[Ignis]

44. What, no pony reference?

[readmoreoften]

114. Manning's not gay as far as I can tell. I think s/he saves the ponies for teh gay.

[sabrina 1]

80. Yes, like just being forced to wear underwear on your head

is not torture! It's just like college hazing!

Wow, the rightwing indoctrination and the specious manipulation of facts we were exposed to as they tried to defend Abu Ghraib, and which back then we absolutely rejected, appears to have desensitized even democrats and seeped into the culture.

We are in worse trouble than I once thought.

[_ed_]

131. You sound like Rush Limbaugh

making light of Abu Gharib because it's like college pranks. We both know this isn't about pillows. Did you ever see yourself defending torture?

[_ed_]

133. You sound like Rush Limbaugh

defending the torturers at Abu Gharib by calling it "college pranks." Are Manning's jailers just "blowing off some steam?"

[msanthrope]

15. Um, read the OP--they are allowed to visit.

As authorized visits, not as official ones.

[Ikonoklast]

60. Manning is NOT a whistleblower.

He decided against going that route and putting himself under the protections offered.

[Bragi]

62. He should have registered with the Obama whistleblower office? /nt

[readmoreoften]

115. Yes, he hasn't blown any "whistles". He just publicized corruption at great personal expense.

:eyes:

Leave it to our supporters of the great "constitutional scholar" to find the most contorted possible arguments to condone anti-American, anti-Democratic policies.

[Rex]

3. They had to make sure to set a public example with Manning

and so far no one is stopping them from doing so. Sad, pathetic and wrong.

Give the guy a trial and give him his clothes back already... :eyes:

[Mnemosyne]

4. K&R n/t

[dennis4868]

5. Good! The asshole deserves it....

assuming this is true....

[Bragi]

10. He revealed war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan /nt

[EFerrari]

11. Pretrial punishment is still illegal in America.

[Bragi]

23. Hard to believe that, isn't it... /nt

[Ignis]

106. No--not anymore, sadly.

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

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

[_ed_]

136. So, you've determined that he's guilty

without a trial. Very American point of view, and how very progressive of you. Wouldn't you feel more comfortable at FreeRepublic.com?

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[EFerrari]

9. What are they hiding?

[zipplewrath]

20. That's their question

Besides the just general desire on the part of individuals to punish this guy prior to actually convicting him of anything, a major issue within the executive branch is, what ELSE has he given Wikileaks? Wiki has been hinting that they have much more, and the government is desperate to find out WHAT he has. One can imagine that they are attempting to find out ALL of what Manning gave Wiki. He probably isn't cooperating because it would basically be an admission of guilt, especially if the "worst" stuff is not yet out there. The government would be much more concerned about his treatment if they really cared about convicting him. All of his testimony since arrest could be tainted if it is established it was coerced out of him. They don't appear to be too concerned about that. I suspect they only care about finding out about everything he has leaked.

[Bragi]

33. True, that AND wanting him to implicate Assange

However, with the US -- a known torture state -- having now tortured Manning, it is no longer likely that Assange could be extradited based on evidence obtained through torture.

So the torture of Manning has been counterproductive for the Obama administration for a number reasons.

[msanthrope]

21. Nothing, which is why they can all visit.

They can all visit as authorized visitors as opposed to official ones.

[Bragi]

28. Nonsense, they've laid down terms that violate his rights

Anyone who can read can see that. The fascists are laying down conditions on the visits that no defense lawyer anywhere would ever allow.

[msanthrope]

35. Um, dude, it's pretty obvious you've NEVER visited anyone in prison.

Only your convos with your attorney are privileged. Everyone else is fair game, and they tell you that, in big ole capital letters.

(Well, you might get a priest/penitent privilege, too.)

[sabrina 1]

150. I have many times, and have never encountered the

harassment Mannings visitors have encountered. Nor do I know anyone else who has. And I know a lot of people who visit prisons. They're not fun places, but if you are a visitor who abides by the rules, they leave you alone.

[EFerrari]

34. The Obama administration is now on the record as obstructing

the UN and Amnesty from investigating the conditions of Manning's detention.

What a proud day for Democrats.

[msanthrope]

37. How??? They are ALLOWED to visit. Read the OP. n/t

[EFerrari]

45. Why don't you try reading the OP instead of repeating

this really embarrassing claim, over and over all over the thread.

The brig is obstructing MULTIPLE investigations now.

If this is how they treat Manning right in front of our faces, imagine how they treat prisoners in more distant facilities.

[msanthrope]

50. Dude, in the OP it states that they are allowed to visit. They will be subject to the same terms

any other non-attorney visitor will be.

[EFerrari]

53. Three separate investigations. Count 'em, three. n/t

[Name removed]

143. Deleted message

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

[Bragi]

39. Yep, this is Obama at his worst /nt

[Selatius]

108. So, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and policitians, cannot investigate his condition???

[msanthrope]

120. Of course they can investigate. What's stopping them?

They can visit him. They can visit his lawyer. They can visit his friends.

They can read the 138 complaint. They can interview the defense's forensic psychiatrist. What's stopping them?

[msanthrope]

12. Your headline is completely incorrect--they are allowed to visit.

But it will not be an 'official' visit. It will be an 'authorized' one.

[upi402]

41. so 'visits' have NOT been denied?

That was the headline, as I understood it. 'Visits' without the qualifier... adjective. But they will allow visit - just monitored. I guess that's the point.

? not sure

[EFerrari]

43. *Official* visits by these people, who are all investigating

the conditions of his detention, have been denied so the brig can MONITOR the visits, which allows them to use anything Manning says against him.

[msanthrope]

59. Yes. Why should any of these people have more rights than any other citizen?

Guess what??? You get arrested ANYTHING you say can be used against you....

[EFerrari]

76. This question has already been answered for you. n/t

[msanthrope]

94. Actually, you've failed to cite a single law, opinion, or even a treaty point that's been violated

by these visits.

Please cite which law is being broken by allowing these visits. Be specific.

[KittyWampus]

18. The thread title is misleading.

[sufrommich]

19. The article you linked to says in the second paragraph

that he has not been denied these visits at all.

[msanthrope]

25. Misleading headline about Bradley Manning? Quelle Surprise!!! n/t

[Bragi]

27. BS

The Government's position is that these people can visit Manning as long as the their conversations are monitored and any statements made by manning can be used as evidence against him.

http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/2011/04/brig-fails-to-follow-its-own-rules.html

I can't imagine any lawyer agreeing to such terms during any prosecution.

You know, it's about that old canard protecting the rights of the accused.

[sufrommich]

31. There's a big difference between being denied the right to

visit and visiting with restrictions. The OP plainly states that Manning is being denied a visit, he's not.

[EFerrari]

38. Yes, because Manning wouldn't feel intimidated in the least

about discussing the conditions of his detention while his visit with the Special Rapporteur was MONITORED by the prison.

Give me a fucking break.

[sufrommich]

46. He's already spoken out about his prison treatment.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/11/stripped-naked-bradley-manning-prison

Obviously, he's not intimidated about it at all.

[EFerrari]

47. And now you defenders of this disgusting crap

have to decide, is he not intimidated at all or is he suicidal?

I guess it's whatever is needed to justify the abuse of the day.

[sufrommich]

49. What are you talking about? You claimed that he would be too

intimidated to talk to Kucinich, I pointed out that he's not too intimidated to talk at all.

[EFerrari]

52. This is obstruction and it violates international law.

Hillary is going to release her yearly human rights report on Friday. What a farce.

[msanthrope]

58. Really? Which 'international law' is being violated? n/t

[Bragi]

65. You do know there are int'l laws against torture, right?

I know these laws aren't recognized by Bush or Obama, but they are part of the US law, which used to be important.

[msanthrope]

75. I can see how allowing a visit from DK could be construed as torture.....n/t

[msanthrope]

93. Explain, please, how allowing a visit violates torture law? n/t

[Bragi]

56. +1

[msanthrope]

32. OMFG--are you serious??? Are you completely unfamiliar with how a jail runs?

Guess what??? In EVERY SINGLE jail in America ANY and ALL convos you have with anyone but your attorney are subject to the same terms.

Go visit a prison sometime. There's signs EVERYWHERE telling you that your convos are subject to monitoring....

[Ikonoklast]

36. Those people aren't his attorneys.

You are being deliberately misleading.

[EFerrari]

40. The UN has opened an investigation on the conditions of his detention.

[msanthrope]

48. And? The UN aren't his attorneys, and have no rights greater than any other citizen. n/t

[EFerrari]

51. The US ratified the UN Convention Against Torture in 1994. n/t

[Ikonoklast]

69. And....? They STILL aren't his attorneys.

They can visit...seems maybe they don't really want to.

[EFerrari]

74. The UN Convention Against Torture is a legally binding instrument.

We are bound to cooperate with the Committee Against Torture.

It's funny how no one had any trouble understanding this while Junior was in office.

[msanthrope]

77. So you keep repeating, but you utterly fail to state HOW the convention has been violated.

It's pretty simple.

Cite an opinion from the Committee Against Torture, and tell us HOW it's being violated.

[sabrina 1]

159. His treatment doesn't just violate International law, it violates

the U.S. Constitution. You are so in the minority on this I would think you would be embarrassed.

The world is watching, which is lucky for Manning or who knows how many more his human rights would be violated.

The fact that they had to back down already proves how wrong they were. If they were not in violation of the GC and the Constitution they would have continued to do what they said they were going to do. But someone wiser obviously got to them, and thankfully they were forced to admit that their actions were wrong and had to stop their abusive treatment.

[Ikonoklast]

79. And they still won't represent him on the charges in a milItary court martial.

What part of that do you willfully ignore, besides all of it?

You are conflating two entirely different things.

[EFerrari]

83. Not at all. The UN is investigating the Obama administration for torture.

As signors of the convention, we are bound to cooperate with that investigation.

You are conflating that investigation with the court martial.

[Ikonoklast]

87. And they get to visit.

[EFerrari]

89. No, the request for an official visit has been denied.

And the difference has been explained on this thread several times already.

Next, the Special Rapporteur goes to the press and has to report that the Obama administration is obstructing his investigation. That will be another great day for Democrats, right?

[msanthrope]

92. Really? When did Manfred Nowak do that? n/t

[msanthrope]

91. If Manfred Nowak isn't complaining, then why are you?

Since he would be the one to allege non-cooperation, and he hasn't--why are you?

[Bragi]

55. And your delighted with this why?

Just to be clear, are you in favor of torture, or just opposed to having charges of torture independently investigated?

[msanthrope]

61. I am delighted that Mr. Manning will be visited by DK--

I am sure they will have a nice chat. Maybe Dennis can bring him sandwich wrap from the House caf.

[Bragi]

67. Torture is so funny, isn't it!

I think it is reprehensible to make light of torture. Why do you find it so amusing?

[Better Believe It]

54. K & R

[Jefferson23]

57. Disgraceful. n/t

[NYC Liberal]

64. Headline should read: Kucinich, UN Reps Allowed To Visit Manning

Because, after all, nobody was denied a visit.

[Bragi]

68. That's the Fox News headline, for sure /nt

[NYC Liberal]

73. The one in the title of the original post sure seems like a Fox headline.

Since, after all, nobody was denied a visit according to the link in the OP.

[EFerrari]

71. No. The UN and Amnesty are conducting investigations.

This is not about visits to chat. This clearly is official business.

Maybe the headline should be "Obama Adminisration Obstructs Torture Investigations Again".

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

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

[bvar22]

82. I Reced this thread,

fully support the UN ban on torture,
believe the treatment of Manning (and Whistle Blowers in general) is outrageous,
.....
but WHAT does this have to do with the Civil War? :shrug:

[Scuba]

72. Shame, shame, shame, shame, shame, shame. n/t

[hayu_lol]

84. Manning is being held under the terms dictated by the UCMJ...

NOT civil law. He knew what he was doing, knew the penalties before he acted, and is probably getting better treatment than other military prisoners. He has meetings with his attornies, can have visits provided the visitors are willing to follow procedures.

People will just have to get used to the idea that military law is quite different from civilian law. I get the impression at this point, from Manning's backers, that he thought he would be treated as a celebrity prisoner. The reality for him will be quite grim.

Actually, compared to what the treatment was at the Naval prison at Portsmouth back in WWII days, he is having a vacation.

Manning is a criminal. Some tend to forget that.

[EFerrari]

85. Punitive pre-trial detention, ILLEGAL under the UCMJ. n/t

[_ed_]

134. They don't care

They'll just defend Obama no matter what. Mark my words: if they waterboard him, you'll find plenty of "progressives" on here who would defend that, too.

[Bragi]

86. No need for a trial, thanks for your verdict /nt

[Hissyspit]

97. LOL Yeah! Fuck that innocent until proven guilty and having trials and stuff like that!

Good grief. :eyes:

[Scuba]

104. Other have pointed out that Manning has NOT been convicted...

...of any crime, so I won't further address that issue.

The ultimate travesty is that Manning is even being CHARGED with a crime. When reporting crimes IS a crime, we're all in big trouble.

Further, your may remember that it is illegal to obey an illegal order.

Any order to cover up criminal activity is illegal.


Manning should be treated as a hero and patriot.

[msanthrope]

110. For leaking the global server addresses of the US Army in Iraq?

Tell me how a hero and a patriot does that.

[Scuba]

123. I'm not aware of any charges related to leaking...

...server addresses, or if doing so would be a crime.


Certainly leaking information about US atrocities is heroic.


(edited for clarity)

[msanthrope]

124. Well, if you read what he was charged with, you might be aware of the charges. One might want to

know what one's 'hero' has been up to---

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/20110302-manning.pdf

[Scuba]

141. OK, lets see....

First it says he "knowingly gave intelligence to the enemy". Let's start with "intelligence". Evidence of crimes committed by US troops is not intelligence. How about "the enemy" part. Well, opposing forces knew about the killings months earlier, so appartently "the enemy" is the American People, the free press, whatever.

The rest basically says he could have or meant to "injure the US". I would argue that exposing our crimes is the only way we'll ever be healed.

[msanthrope]

145. Again, you want to explain how giving global server addresses of the US Command

in Iraq exposes any crimes????

Also, what crimes did Bradley Manning expose? Are you conceding he is, in fact, the leaker???

[_ed_]

135. He's guilty before a trial?

How does that work?

[msanthrope]

146. According to several posters on this thread, Manning is the leaker.

Don't look at me--if his own supporters are saying that he is the leaker, and what he did was right, and they have knowledge, then who am I to gainsay them?

[_ed_]

155. If you're ever accused of a crime,

I hope your jury has more respect for the American principle of innocence before proven guilty in a court of law.

[Cid_B]

129. Makes my brain hurt...

Which crimes did he "whistleblow" on exactly?

All I saw was a massive data dump with the hope that something embarrassing to his employer would be found...

Also, the idea that someone who blatantly violates their security clearance and their oath should just be hailed as a hero is idiotic.

[indimuse]

81. President *Bush* should be ashamed!

.... ;)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

90. Whistleblowr + UN + Amnesty International = Danger to 'Murka.

At least in the eyes of the administration and it's devotees.

[grntuscarora]

95. The UN and Amnesty Intl

are allowed "authorized" visits. Well, isn't that nice. And we're expected to believe Manning will speak freely to them about the conditions of his confinement while realizing he could be made to pay an immediate price for any "unflattering" comments. I've always admired the work that Amnesty International does and have supported them in their efforts. The fact that it's my own country and a fellow citizen in question does not alter my support. Quite the contrary.

Allow Amnesty an "official" visit. What's the government afraid of? After all, Bradley's being treated like a prince, I'm sure.


:sarcasm:

[EFerrari]

98. That's right. Abu Quantico could put all of this to rest just like that. n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

96. "Appropriate and meeting our basic standards."

[Bragi]

99. A very bad Obama moment /nt

[EFerrari]

100. "It is a first-class, first-rate facility that meets any kind of international standard

that you could think of," Ensign said of Guantanamo Bay, arguing prisoners exercise regularly, have access to Arabic and U.S. newspapers, are given medical treatment from the American Red Cross and can watch movies.

[wildbilln864]

121. k&r! nt

[OnyxCollie]

147. Kick. nt

[WinkyDink]

152. Yay for President Obama.

[KoKo]

158. It's so sad that folks "out there" aren't paying attention to what Manning is going through...

I don't know how to explain it..except "Bush Years Indoctrination" ...and folks who thought any new President would ever be able to CHANGE ...what was done all those YEARS BEFORE...about EMPIRE and WAR...and What Happens Eventually when the two combine...and WAR FOREVER ...becomes the "Final Solution" to Economic Problems. SAD...