Obama Faces Criticism From Mentor Over Bradley Manning Treatment

[Ramulux]

"The man who taught President Obama constitutional law is now accusing him of violating it in his own administration. Laurence Tribe, who was one of Obama's professors at Harvard and served as a Justice Department legal adviser until last December, has signed onto a letter with over 250 other legal scholars assailing the Obama administration for its treatment of Bradley Manning, the soldier accused of divulging classified documents to Wikileaks.

The letter says the sum of his conditions are "a violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment and the Fifth Amendment's guarantee against punishment without trial." Manning was arrested in May 2010 but he has not yet been tried for any crime."

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/the_man_who_taught_president.php?ref=fpb


As usual, I would like to hear what excuses Obama's fans have for why all these legal scholars are wrong.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

1. .

:popcorn:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

2. Close.

"The man who almost taught President Obama constitutional law is now accusing him of violating it in his own administration. Laurence Tribe, who was one of Obama's professors at Harvard and served as a Justice Department legal adviser until last December, has signed onto a letter with over 250 other legal scholars assailing the Obama administration for its treatment of Bradley Manning, the soldier accused of divulging classified documents to Wikileaks.

...

[G_j]

7. +1000!

[Canuckistanian]

37. +1

Obama must have cheated on the final.

[CelticThunder]

3. K&r

[ProSense]

4. If this story is going to be recycled,

it should include the update.

Additional Signers: Jack Balkin, Kwame Anthony Appiah, Alexander M. Capron, Norman Dorsen, Michael W. Doyle, Randall Kennedy, Mitchell Lasser, Sanford Levinson, David Luban, Frank I. Michelman, Robert B. Reich, Kermit Roosevelt, Kim Scheppele, Alec Stone Sweet, Laurence H. Tribe, and more than 250 others. A complete list of signers has been posted on the blog balkinization.

From the link:

<...>

UPDATE:Our initial draft relied on news reports in the major news outlets. Comments we received since then lead us to think that two facts may be overstated in the original draft:
1. The instance of forced nudity overnight and in morning parade apparently occurred once. The continuing regime apparently commands removal of Pvt. Manning's clothes and his wearing a "smock" at night.
2. The shackling apparently occurs when Private Manning is moved from his cell to the exercise room, but not while walking during the one hour of exercise.

Other responses we have received suggest that there are claims of myriad other abuses that make conditions worse in various ways than we describe. We do not, and cannot, seek to adjudicate these factual claims. The conflicting responses underscore the need for a public, transparent, and credible response to the reported abuse, and cessation of those among them that cannot be justified.

<...>

Yeah, the letter was based on unsubstantiated media reports.

[Wilms]

5. It's not like there are many sources for them to check.

How many people get to visit Manning?

And while we're at it, TWO conditions may have been inaccurate. How about the rest?

You're OK with Manning's treatment?

[msanthrope]

8. Manning's own attorney has a blog. There's also a litle something lawyers do--

they call each other. They've also been known to use email. Letters. Twitter....

Seriously--all any of these people had to do was simply contact David Coombs.

Or they could have read the 138 complaint--available online--and read how poor Bradley was naked the first day for three minutes at 'parade rest.' (See pages 9-10)

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B_zC44SBaZPoMzMyNWExZmUtZjEzMS00ZjM2LWE3OWMtM2I4NzY5NDNkMmFh&hl=en&authkey=CMKgiogG

[Wilms]

25. As I said above, there seems to be two inaccurate claims.

How about the rest of it?

[msanthrope]

34. What claims? Referring to Manning's own filings, his own claims

and not the claims of others, what troubles you????

Please cite Manning's own 138, not a blogpost.

[Wilms]

38. I'm referring to the letter. It's linked in the OP article.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/apr/28/private-mannings-humiliation/

250+ have signed it. The UN and Great Britain are raising eyebrows. I'm to assume everything is just peachy?

Pardon my ignorance. I didn't graduate from John Yooniversity.

[msanthrope]

44. So, then, Manning and his attorney aren't claiming torture then?

Because rather than a letter, I've given you Manning's own words....

Now, I understand why you wouldn't want to reference the actual filings in the case....

[Wilms]

45. I see it fit to reference the letter that the post is about.

I understand why you wouldn't want to reference it.

[msanthrope]

49. Well, I'm referencing sworn facts from Mr. Manning himself.

That they are at odds with the narrative created about Mr. Manning is hardly surprising.

[Wilms]

61. .

The sum of the treatment that has been widely reported is a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment and the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee against punishment without trial. If continued, it may well amount to a violation of the criminal statute against torture, defined as, among other things, “the administration or application…of… procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality.”

snip

Private Manning has been designated as an appropriate subject for both Maximum Security and Prevention of Injury (POI) detention. But he asserts that his administrative reports consistently describe him as a well-behaved prisoner who does not fit the requirements for Maximum Security detention. The brig psychiatrist began recommending his removal from Prevention of Injury months ago. These claims have not been publicly contested. In an Orwellian twist, the spokesman for the brig commander refused to explain the forced nudity “because to discuss the details would be a violation of Manning’s privacy.”

The administration has provided no evidence that Manning’s treatment reflects a concern for his own safety or that of other inmates. Unless and until it does so, there is only one reasonable inference: this pattern of degrading treatment aims either to deter future whistleblowers, or to force Manning to implicate Wikileaks founder Julian Assange in a conspiracy, or both.

If Manning is guilty of a crime, let him be tried, convicted, and punished according to law. But his treatment must be consistent with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. There is no excuse for his degrading and inhumane pretrial punishment. As the State Department’s P.J. Crowley put it recently, they are “counterproductive and stupid.” And yet Crowley has now been forced to resign for speaking the plain truth.

snip



http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/apr/28/private-mannings-humiliation/

[msanthrope]

63. Wow. Maybe his lawyer should use it as an exhibit. n/t

[sabrina 1]

70. And as I've pointed out, with quotes from Manning's own

complaint which you apparently have not read, both he and his attorney are claiming he is being subjected to 'cruel and unusual' treatment in violation of his constitutional rights.

Maybe you better go read it. You're not making much sense referencing that complaint to try to support your defense of the abuse of detainees in violation of all of our laws. The complaint cites the violation of Manning's Constitutional rights to be protected from cruel and unusual treatment.

[sabrina 1]

71. 'John Yooniversity'!

Good one. It's disturbing to see any defense of Bush policies on this board. I remember when there was nothing but outrage at this kind of treatment of any detainee. What has happened to the Democratic Party?

[sabrina 1]

43. Did YOU read his complaint? I have to think you did not

because no one could have read it and then try to defend it.

You clearly either did not read it, or you are deliberately attempting to minimize the severity of the abusive treatment he received. Your flippant dismissal of this very serious matter, serious enough that the military has been forced to modify its cruel and unusual treatment of Bradley Manning once it received exposure and decent people everywhere were appalled by it, is shameful.

His 138 complaint describes treatment that no human being should be subjected to, especially for not good reason. It violates our laws, our morals and international law which this country, including the military, are subject to.

He has been abused, and the constitution has been violated by the military. You will never convince decent people that this kind of behavior by the military, is acceptable in any way, no matter how hard you try. Not so decent people however, won't need convincing.

Just a small sample from the complaint. He has been abused now for nearly a year. Shame on this president for allowing this to happen. And the entire system needs to be dealt with as I know from other people in the military that people are abused constantly by the sickos who run these detention centers.

From Bradley Manning's complaint:

4) Once the leg restraints were taken off of me, I took a
step back from the guards. My heart was pounding in my chest, and I
could feel myself getting dizzy. I sat down to avoid falling. When I
did this, the guards took a step towards me. I instinctively backed
away from them. As soon as I backed away, I could tell by their faces
that they were getting ready to restrain me. I immediately put my
hands up in the air, and said “I am not doing anything, I am just
trying to follow your orders.” The guards then told me to start
walking. I complied with their order by saying “eye” instead of “yes.”
Loading... 8 / 11

He was kept naked and was threatened with that continuing indefinitely, for days, but public outrage forced them to discontinue this violation of the Geneva Conventions. I hope there will be charges against those responsible. And good for the hundreds of thousands of ordinary people who stood up for him.

[msanthrope]

54. Being told to start walking is torture????

Naked for days????

Manning's own complaint denies that.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B_zC44SBaZPoMzMyNWExZmUtZjEzMS00ZjM2LWE3OWMtM2I4NzY5NDNkMmFh&hl=en&authkey=CMKgiogG

You keep claiming stuff, and yet never citing it???? Why is that???

Oh, and for kicks, kindly show us where his attorney thinks there's a Geneva Conventions violation???

[sabrina 1]

68. Manning claims that his Constitutional rights have been violated.

Your attempt to use Manning's own complaint to show he is not being abused was a mistake. He and his attorney, who signed the complaint, both claim the exact opposite:

I have, both by statute and the Eighth Amendment, the right to
protection against cruel and unusual punishment. See United States v.
Matthews, 16 M.J. 354, 368 (CMA 1983); Article 55, Uniform Code of
Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 855. The Secretary of the Navy
Instruction 1649.9C details the procedures and safeguards for
classification of inmates, evaluation of inmates and the limited use of
special quarters. The Navy Instruction states “discipline is to be
administered on a corrective rather than a punitive basis.”
Additionally it states “no persons, while being held for trial may be
subjected to punishment or penalty other than arrest or confinement,
nor shall the arrest or confinement imposed upon them be any more
rigorous than the circumstances require.” My confinement
classification and status are in clear contravention of the Navy
Instruction.

Find another way to support abuse of detainees. Mannings complaint is not helping you.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

9. Do you even read the stuff you link?

[ProSense]

12. Yes, do you? n/t

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

27. Sure. E.g., there's at least 3 sitting ducks in the body of your post:

Other responses we have received suggest that there are claims of myriad other abuses that make conditions worse in various ways than we describe. We do not, and cannot, seek to adjudicate these factual claims. The conflicting responses underscore the need for a public, transparent, and credible response to the reported abuse, and cessation of those among them that cannot be justified.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[msanthrope]

31. What is more transparent than Manning's own filings?

Can you name a single instance of abuse or torture that Manning claimed, from his own filings?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

88. I was kvetching about non-supportive links, not the veracity of the claims themselves.

[ProSense]

50. Here,

read this:

UPDATE:Our initial draft relied on news reports in the major news outlets. Comments we received since then lead us to think that two facts may be overstated in the original draft:
1. The instance of forced nudity overnight and in morning parade apparently occurred once.

[msanthrope]

10. Note that Manning's own 138 complaint backs your post, ProSense--

On pages 9 and 10, Manning details how he once had to stand, for about 3 minutes, naked. He also had to be ordered to wear his smock.


https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B_zC44SBaZPoMzMyNWExZmUtZjEzMS00ZjM2LWE3OWMtM2I4NzY5NDNkMmFh&hl=en&authkey=CMKgiogG


Now, if Manning is stating this only happened once, in a filing to the military court, is he lying????

[ProSense]

11. Thanks.

Evidently, facts are of no value.

[msanthrope]

14. Especially facts written by Mr. Manning HIMSELF!!!! Posted on his attorney's blog!!

The filings are available for all to see--

Original Complaint--

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B_zC44SBaZPoNDQzNzBhYzItNjdjYi00YjgyLWEzNDgtOWFhZjNkNzcyOGVl&hl=en&authkey=CP2qxb8L

Rebuttal--

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B_zC44SBaZPoMzMyNWExZmUtZjEzMS00ZjM2LWE3OWMtM2I4NzY5NDNkMmFh&hl=en&authkey=CMKgiogG

Interestingly, Mr. Manning has NOT chosen to post the Answer to his Original Complaint from the Quantico Brig.

Now, I find that strange--does it contain things that Mr. Manning does not want his contributors to know?

[Tarheel_Dem]

15. If Manning's story conflicts with the narrative that's being created, you're damned...

right "he's lying", and will be of no further use to the PL. I've heard of sleazy lawyers trying to gain as much sympathy for their clients as possible, because it's necessary if you want to win in the court of public opinion. I'm not saying his lawyer is lying, in this particular case, but we all know that lawyers aren't above trickery if they think it'll help their case.

[msanthrope]

17. Well, let's face it--there was a little matter of a fee. It's not like Assange was paying it.

Look, If I were a contributor to the Manning Defense Fund, I might note that a lot of fundraising took place before the filing of the 138...

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B_zC44SBaZPoNDQzNzBhYzItNjdjYi00YjgyLWEzNDgtOWFhZjNkNzcyOGVl&hl=en&authkey=CP2qxb8L

I might also note, that according to this filing, clear as day, Bradley Manning was recommended to be placed on POI watch by his psychiatrist on 10 December, 2010. This does not fit the narrative, I know, but there it is.

Further, I might note that while Manning's 138 filings are available, the government's replies have not been furnished by Manning's attorney.

[sabrina 1]

73. Except that Manning's story does not conflict with the

narrative. You just implied that someone is a sleazy lawyer apparently withouot knowing anything about the case.

Even the military has not denied the treatment Manning claims he has been subjected to and at least one State Dept. official, P.J. Crowley correctly stated that the treatment was 'counterproductive'. I don't think there is any doubt that he is being abused. Not to mention the other witnesses.

His lawyer and Manning are making the same claims. Maybe you should do your own research rather than accept the claims being made by a commenter who has been proven wrong throughout this thread using the very complaint he provided himself.

[sabrina 1]

72. How sad to read your posts on this board. Manning

and his attorney clearly state that he is being kept in solitary confinement and that he is being subjected to 'cruel and unusual' punishment in violation of his Constitutional Rights.

You can scream as loudly as you want in denial of that fact, but it doesn't change a thing. Once was TOO MANY TIMES for him to be subjected to humiliating treatment. ONCE, I will say it again, was too many times. Do you think you have to commit a crime multiple times for it be a crime?

You should be ashamed to defend this. And so should this president.

[_ed_]

13. Who cares if two minor points were in factual error?

There's simply no way you would defend Bush if he were doing this treatment to Manning. Clear propagandizing for the administration with no real substance whatsoever, as usual.

[msanthrope]

16. As they are the gravamen of the 8th amendment claim, factual error becomes important.

1) Forced, prolonged nakedness is a viable 8th amendment claim. But when Mr. Manning's own filing indicates that he was publicly naked for about three minutes, and was later given a smock that he had to be ordered to wear, then the 8th amendment claim on that goes down the toilet....

2) With regard to the shackling---constant shackling IS an 8th amendment claim. But in the normal course of prison, prisoners are often shackled as they go from place to place....particularly prisoners that have previously hit colleagues, as Mr. Manning has. So that 8th amendment claim fails....

You may think that these are two minor points, but they would have made an 8th amendment claim (in a habeas, not military) possible. Fortunately, Mr. Manning's own filings dispel the lies.

[_ed_]

18. I'm not concerned about the value of his 8th Amendment claims

in general. I'm shamed that I voted for a President who would confine a whistleblower in this way before proven guilty.

Your 8th Amendment analysis isn't the consensus understanding of these types of claims. You're not the only lawyer around here: don't pretend your legal opinions are the clear standard that will be affirmed by any court.

[msanthrope]

21. You should be, if you truly care about him and others in confinement.

And I suggest to you that a brief perusal of the relevant case law would suggest to you that when one attempts to raise the 8th amendment with regard to the military, one ought to be better prepared.

[_ed_]

24. Provide some links

if you've actually done your research. I'd be glad to read them.

[msanthrope]

29. Jeebus christ----his own friggen' lawyer says the 8th doesn't apply.

Holy crap. Go call his lawyer and tell him he's got it wrong.

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/12/21/wikielaks-mannings-a.html

As I said, if you want to argue the 8th amendment and the military, one ought to be better prepared.

And if you can get through it, read White, from 2001. It'll answer all your questions.

[_ed_]

32. Article 13?

His own lawyer says: "He cannot see other inmates from his cell. He can occasionally hear other inmates talk. Due to being a pretrial confinement facility, inmates rarely stay at the facility for any length of time. Currently, there are no other inmates near his cell."

It is not clear that this won't satisfy a claim under Art. 13, UCMJ:
"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. "

Continued solitary confinement for an indefinite period of time isn't cut and dried under Art. 13.

[msanthrope]

35. Show me where, in the 138 claim, Manning or his lawyer claim

that this is somehow violative of Article 13.

Let me see if I have this correctly? You are claiming that Article 13 is violated because he doesn't have enough neighbors in the Brig?

[_ed_]

39. Here you go:

From Coombs' website:
"Based upon the facts of this case, the defense will file an Article 13 motion at the appropriate time. Until that time, we will continue to work through military channels and the SJA office to remove the harsh conditions of confinement."

And, I hardly think any lawyer would use a phrase like "Article 13 is violated because he doesn't have enough neighbors in the Brig" when filing a claim in a court of law.

[msanthrope]

42. You failed to cite anything but a blogpost.

The actual 138 is on the website. Since that is the sworn statement given to the military, and not the fundraising appeal, AGAIN, I ask you to cite where, in the 138 and the rebuttal, they are claiming that a lack of neighbors violates Article 13.

[_ed_]

53. He said he's going to file an Art. 13 claim in the future

did you miss that?

[msanthrope]

56. Look, it took him over 6 months to file the first 138. I'll believe it when I see it. n/t

[_ed_]

58. If you know anything about the legal system,

you know that that sort of timeframe isn't unique for the American justice system, especially for a case of such secrecy and magnitude.

[msanthrope]

62. I know if you are bitching about the length of pre-trial detention, you file quickly.

Apparently, waiting 6 months to even start the process was acceptable to Manning.

[_ed_]

87. Yeah, cause this is just your garden variety UCMJ proceeding

where you'd expect rapid filings. It's not like there aren't any secrecy or national security issues surrounding the case, either, right?

You're making yourself look foolish now.

[_ed_]

41. More:

"A case that is similar on facts to that of PFC Manning’s is United States v. Avila. 53 M.J. 99 (C.A.A.F. 2000). In Avila, a servicemember raised an Article 13 motion alleging illegal pretrial punishment based upon his pretrial confinement. During the servicemember’s pretrial confinement, by brig policy and based solely on the serious nature of his pending charges, the servicemember was housed in a windowless cell; not allowed to communicate with other pretrial confinees; given only one hour of daily recreation; made to wear shackles outside of his cell, and only allowed to see visitors separated by a window. The CAAF agreed with the lower court’s holding that the brig policy of assigning all pretrial confinees facing a possible sentence of five or more years to maximum (solitary) confinement was unreasonable. The court ordered an additional 140 days of pretrial confinement credit due to the violation of Article 13."

[msanthrope]

46. Again, as above, you are citing a blogpost, not the actual filings.

Kindly show us all where in the actual filings Mr. Manning claims that the brig policy at issue in Avila is what Quantico is using against him.

[_ed_]

55. There are no "actual filings" for the Art. 13 claim

he will file in the FUTURE. Do you have some problem understanding the temporal relationship between past and future?

[msanthrope]

57. So it's all speculative bullshit. Send in those donations, though!!! n/t

[_ed_]

60. Yeah, just like any pending legal filing is "speculative bullshit"

Got anything else other than hyperbole about a serious moral and legal issue?

[msanthrope]

65. Hyperbole? I'm the only one citing the actual filings in the case!

Goodnight!

[_ed_]

84. You might want to look up the definition of

hyperbole: it has nothing to do with citing things. I was referring to your flippant use of "lack of neighbors in his condo" language when discussing a serious moral issue, which is torture.

[sabrina 1]

78. Do you think you are convincing anyone of anything?

What is your point? His attorney and he are claiming his Constitutional rights are being violated. And an awful lot of credible people agree.

This president should be thoroughly ashamed of himself as CIC to be overseeing these kinds of violations of our laws.

[_ed_]

85. He doesn't care

He thought he was going to wow people on here with his ten-cent words live "gravamen." It's a lawyers' trick to avoid discussing the real issue at hand -- torture -- and one of the chief reasons I can't stand lawyers (I used to be one).

[sabrina 1]

90. Yes, the reasoning sounds a lot like Bush's torture

excusing lawyers who twisted and manipulated language to try to justify their war crimes. No wonder China, one of the world's worst human rights abusers themselves, can now attack the U.S. on human rights issues, and have people actually agree with them.

Anyone who cares about this country will demand that these practices stop and that those responsible be held accountable. We have zero moral authority in the world anymore, no one listens to the U.S. on human rights issues and we are losing status in the world. The problem is when the U.S. declines, someone else will take over the role and those who refused to hold their government accountable will be responsible for that.

[sabrina 1]

74. Wrong, his own complaint, signed by his lawyer

DOES state that his 8th Amend. rights are being violated. Again, did you read the complaint?

[Bluebear]

93. +

[shaayecanaan]

59. Call me naive...

but for the last seven hundred years or so being held without charge in itself (whether naked or not) was generally seen as perfectly valid basis for a writ of habeas corpus.

We sure have come a long way since then, haven't we?

[msanthrope]

64. Okay. You are naive. He was charged last July, shortly after arrest. n/t

[ProSense]

19. Hmmmm?

"There's simply no way you would defend Bush if he were doing this treatment to Manning."

Are you suggesting that any comparable situation existed in which Bush would have been telling the truth and people were falsely accusing him of torture?

[_ed_]

20. Solitary confinement IS torture

I can't believe I'm arguing about torture with Democrats now, too. Only Rs used to defend torture. Seems like things have changed.

[msanthrope]

22. He is not in solitary confinement.

The Quantico brig has only single-cell units. That is not torture.

Although I'm interested in hearing how you want a person accused of aiding the enemy to mingle with the other prisoners.

Having read the 138, it is clear that Manning is not asking to be removed from his single cell--only that other restrictions be lifted.

[_ed_]

23. Have you ever experienced solitary confinement for months and months?

Your determination that it's not torture isn't a fact. Hell, Bush always said that waterboarding isn't torture, either. So, I guess we'll just keep redefining "torture" until it no longer has any meaning.

“It’s an awful thing, solitary,” John McCain wrote of his five and a half years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam—more than two years of it spent in isolation in a fifteen-by-fifteen-foot cell, unable to communicate with other P.O.W.s except by tap code, secreted notes, or by speaking into an enamel cup pressed against the wall. “It crushes your spirit and weakens your resistance more effectively than any other form of mistreatment.” And this comes from a man who was beaten regularly; denied adequate medical treatment for two broken arms, a broken leg, and chronic dysentery; and tortured to the point of having an arm broken again. A U.S. military study of almost a hundred and fifty naval aviators returned from imprisonment in Vietnam, many of whom were treated even worse than McCain, reported that they found social isolation to be as torturous and agonizing as any physical abuse they suffered.

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/03/30/090330fa_fact_gawande#ixzz1JG96Qnab

[msanthrope]

30. As I said, Manning isn't in solitary. He's in a single cell.

With access to doctors, his lawyer, visitors, and legal and reading material. He can exercise. He can write letters. He leaves his cell every single day.

Kindly name the physical abuse you think Bradley Manning is claiming???? You know, the stuff that makes the comparison to John McCain credible???

Oh--since I gave you the links, kindly show us where Manning wants to share a cell.

[_ed_]

33. The McCain quotes were about SOLITARY CONFINEMENT

Reading the post otherwise is being willfully ignorant. Being kept in a "single cell" with little contact with anyone else for months and months is called "solitary confinement." You're using semantic games to justify torture. You must be so proud.

You're officially to the right of Obama's R opponent on the nature of solitary confinement and torture. Congrats.

[msanthrope]

36. He isn't in solitary confinement. In fact, he's not asking to have a roommate.

I read the 138.

He isn't asking that he be put in with other prisoners. If he is, kindly show us all, where???

He is asking that some of the restrictions he is under be removed.

FYI--people in solitary confinement don't get mail, attorney's visits, visits from friends, and exercise. They don't leave their cells, and they aren't given books.

[_ed_]

40. FYI--I hardly trust your legal opinion

See UCMJ Art. 13 discussion in the thread above.

[msanthrope]

52. Don't, then. n/t

[sabrina 1]

47. He was in solitary confinement. You posted the complaint,

obviously without reading it. The only reason he is not now, is because of the public outrage from all over the world. But he is still wrongfully being held under suicide watch, which was done for no reason other than to punish him. And that is an outrage. Hopefully they will be shamed into ending that also, as they have had to end some of the other abuses he was subjected to.

[msanthrope]

51. As I said, Manning isn't in solitary. He's in a single cell. That's all that's at Quantico.

Kindly show us all where he and his attorney want him to have a roommate????

[sabrina 1]

69. And again, Manning's own complaint, which you are using

to try to back up your support of the abuse of detainees, contradicts you:

From Manning's complaint:

I am essentially held in solitary confinement. For 23 hours per
day, I sit alone in my cell.

If I were you, I would not use Manning's complaint to try to back up your defense of violations of the Constitution, the GC, and the Military's own code of justice. Neither Manning nor his attorney agree with you.

[_ed_]

86. You're wasting your time

There's literally no evidence that could possibly make him stop reflexively defending torture. If Obama does it, then it's fine by him.

[sabrina 1]

91. True, but for others who have not read the complaint

which is being distorted here, it's worth pointing out the distortions. Manning and his Attorney do claim in the complaint that his Constitutional rights to be protected from 'cruel and unusual punishment' are being violated, contrary to what this commenter is saying.

They also claim violations of the Military's own code of justice, and that he is being kept in solitary confinement. Right in the complaint this commenter is referring to.

Thank YOU though for so effectively defending our laws and even more so, our claims to be a moral and just nation by refusing to accept this kind of abuse.

And as another commenter stated in the thread, it is encouraging to see that a majority of DUers are appalled by the treatment of Manning.

[sabrina 1]

79. Yes he is in Solitary Confinement. And it is in his complaint.

Funny how you ignore his complaint when it doesn't suit your narrative.

Manning's Complaint

From Manning's complaint, signed by his attorney:

5. Under my current restrictions, in addition to being stripped at
night, I am essentially held in solitary confinement. For 23 hours perday, I sit alone in my cell.

And earlier, as the complaint cites, he was kept in his cell in complete solitary confinement for 24 hours a day.

Thank god the public got involved in this or who knows what might be happening to him now. It is only because of the public outrage that he got back that hour.

[sabrina 1]

80. Yes he is in solitary confinement. His own complaint, which

you keep referring to, states that he is. And yes, solitiary confinement is torture. 'Accused'?? But not convicted. And his complaint cites the Military's own code of justice which forbids punitive measures being taken against someone who is awaiting trial.

[ooglymoogly]

92. What: is a broken record?

Posts that are interchangeable from one to another. Interesting body of work.

[Shagbark Hickory]

26. President Obama needs a refresher course. Do you think the local community college there in DC

offers one?

[Wilms]

48. He went to John Yooniversity right after the election. n/t

[Bluebear]

81. !!!

[mountainlion55]

66. Free Bradley Manning

Obama is just another crooked pol trying to create his own dynasty! Nothing more,Nothing less. If you watched our natural born killers slaughter those people with the Apache. It seems to me that Mr Manning should have never been arrested in the first place.

[treestar]

67. So where was he when this happened before?

Why wasn't he behind suits to challenge these procedures before this?

[Exilednight]

75. I wish more of Obama's former professors were as outspoken as this one. n/t

[Bluebear]

76. Wow, this thread was quite the "ignored" magnet!

:rofl:

[Dappleganger]

77. LOL, it sure is!

heh ;)

[liberation]

82. His mentor never lover him

:cry:

Anyhow, it is obvious now that there is no one and nothing that is safe from the underside of the bus the minute they say anything less than stellar about this presidency, even if it implies supporting the stuff which made Bush such a bad president as to require the election of Obama to begin with. It is astounding to see this in action really.

[Bragi]

83. Overwhelming DU support for Manning commendable

I note that every time a story about Manning's abuse is posted, the large number of subsequent posts suggests at first glance that there is considerable division here about whether this abuse is justified.

However, if you look closely, it is clear that there are really only a very tiny number of persistent DU members whose postings actually support the abuse of Manning by the Obama administration.

I'm glad that this is the case, and just thought it worth noting.

[Search4Justice]

89. Well said and quite accurate.

Seems some will sell the principles to support a personality. I won't.

Wrong is wrong.