Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

sebster wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:I don't consider Bradley Manning's treatment as "torture".

He violated laws under the US military justice codes, and is being treated as such. He is, after all, military personnel and subject to those rules.

What? That makes no sense. I didn't suggest that simply imprisoning him was torture, but that the actual conditions of his imprisonment are torture.

The plain fact is that he was made to sit in his cell in solitary in his underwear, attend morning parade naked, all the while without his prescription glasses leaving him basically blind.

The UN special rapporteur on torture has been denied access to see Manning, and Amnesty International has undertaken multiple efforts to have the conditions of his incarceration reviewed.

Solitary confinement is standard operating procedure for someone who'd be dead within minutes if placed with other inmates, especially when those inmates happen to be soldiers, and the person in question is awaiting trial for stealing documents from the state department and leaking them to an effectively random third party for only the most frivolous of reasons.

Anybody else think that this may become a national holiday?

halonachos wrote:Anybody else think that this may become a national holiday?

Sure, why not?

halonachos wrote:Anybody else think that this may become a national holiday?

God I hope not.

Grabzak Dirtyfighter wrote:He is damned lucky he isn't going to the firing squad for leaking CLASSIFIED documents to a foreigner to be plastered all over the internet.Which imho he deserves. If he didn't want to serve his country I don't remember any recent drafts...

It's not torture if you think they're bad people?

And yeah, if the action was treason and the deserves death then try him, and shoot him if he's found guilty. But degradation and isolation before trial is obviously unacceptable to anyone who puts any value at all into due process or human dignity.

Oh feth, I said I wasn't going to try and mention due process in this thread... now look what you made me do


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:He was being held at a maximum security prison. Of course he was being made to sit in his cell in solitary.

Umm, solitary isn't required for all maximum security prisoners. You can observe this by noting Manning has since been released from solitary...

I find it kind of hard to be sympathetic in Manning's case though.

I have no particular sympathy to Manning. I just think that societies that like to consider themselves civilised shouldn't inflict suffering on people for its own sake, not only for the sake of the prisoner, but for the sake of society itself.

The justifications for the humiliation and isolation of Manning were obviously threadbare, and entirely contrived. The purpose for humliating and isolating Manning was to humiliate and isolate Manning, because he did a very bad thing.

And the original point is that people who were outraged when these things took place during the Bush administration are no longer quite so outraged.

I'm not a big fan of Manning either.

He swore oaths, and broke them. That makes you a traitor from the jump, anything else is secondary. Of course, I may have singularly crystallized ideas about duty and integrity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:And the original point is that people who were outraged when these things took place during the Bush administration are no longer quite so outraged.

Politics are amusing, n'cest pas?

Monster Rain wrote:I'm not a big fan of Manning either.

He swore oaths, and broke them. That makes you a traitor from the jump, anything else is secondary. Of course, I may have singularly crystallized ideas about duty and integrity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:And the original point is that people who were outraged when these things took place during the Bush administration are no longer quite so outraged.

Politics are amusing, n'cest pas?

Because it changed, duh. Obama brought change in America's thinking about torture.

Besides, according to certain people we're not civilized because of our stance on gun laws and other than that we're not really civilized we just have better technology now.

Either that or it stems from the fact that you feel bad if someone robs you, but it feels worse if someone you know and trusted robbed you, not because he stole more but because he broke your trust. Trust is a vulnerability of one person based on the belief that the other will act in a way to benefit the person placing the trust. The government made him sign a contract and placed trust in him, he broke that trust and it feels a lot worse than if a foreign spy stole the information.

I am amazed at what people consider to be torture now days.

sebster wrote:And the original point is that people who were outraged when these things took place during the Bush administration are no longer quite so outraged.

The people who actually cared then still do, it's just no one listens to them because they're kind of annoying. The people who promptly shut up about it after Obama won didn't care in the first place, they just wanted something meaningful to level at Bush.

Graveyman wrote:I am amazed at what people consider to be torture now days.

Some of it is due to new research into psychology.

sebster wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:He was being held at a maximum security prison. Of course he was being made to sit in his cell in solitary.

Umm, solitary isn't required for all maximum security prisoners. You can observe this by noting Manning has since been released from solitary...

And is now at a 'medium' security prison. The pretrial housing was at Quantico, which was set up solely with solitary cells. He was not being treated differently.

I find it kind of hard to be sympathetic in Manning's case though.

I have no particular sympathy to Manning. I just think that societies that like to consider themselves civilised shouldn't inflict suffering on people for its own sake, not only for the sake of the prisoner, but for the sake of society itself.

What "suffering" is being inflicted on him for suffering's sake? Seriously. I want to know this. Everything I've heard from all the "Free Manning!" garbage is that he's "being horribly mistreated" by his time in prison.

The guy did what is considered a criminal act. He was being housed in a prison. It's not going to be sunshine and fething rainbows, especially when you make a suicide joke.
Whatever you want to lay at their feet, the end of the story is this:
The government is responsible for the well-being of those in its care. Prisoners are within their care. If something had happened to him or he really had intended to kill himself--then the blame would be at their doorstep.
You may say that it's cruel and overzealous with taking away his glasses, but I've heard tales from correctional officers about far less threatening items than eyeglasses being used by inmates to harm themselves or others.

The justifications for the humiliation and isolation of Manning were obviously threadbare, and entirely contrived. The purpose for humliating and isolating Manning was to humiliate and isolate Manning, because he did a very bad thing.

Really, it's silly to say this. Manning's own lawyer(as of December 2010) has said that "that the guards were professional, and had not tried to bully, harass, or embarrass Manning."

It's really his own damned fault in this situation. His claims of "humiliation" were that he felt embarrassed being seen naked by the other detainees. Well, maybe next time don't crack a suicide joke when guards have already reported observing the symptoms of depression.
His "isolation" is, again, overblown. Every inmate in this facility is "isolated". They're allowed to communicate with each other, but they will not see each other. They also don't share their cells with other inmates, by all accounts.

And the original point is that people who were outraged when these things took place during the Bush administration are no longer quite so outraged.

If I saw a reason to be outraged with this case, I would be. I'm not seeing one. He's a ward of the military and under its care during the duration of his pretrial and trial.

Is he going to be likely given a raw deal at trial because he's being tied in with the WikiLeaks scandal? Probably.
That's what I'd be 'outraged' about if anything.

I guess you could say that yesterday for Osama was Abbottabad as it gets...

Monster Rain wrote:Politics are amusing, n'cest pas?

Yeah. But if there was a genuine reason for him being there in the first place, you think they would have risked moving him out of solitary?

halonachos wrote:Because it changed, duh. Obama brought change in America's thinking about torture.

No, he might have moved the line closer to where it was pre-Bush, pre-9/11, but that's all.

Besides, according to certain people we're not civilized because of our stance on gun laws and other than that we're not really civilized we just have better technology now.

You'll never please everyone, but who cares? You don't do these things so that other people will think you civilised, you do them because they are civilised.

Either that or it stems from the fact that you feel bad if someone robs you, but it feels worse if someone you know and trusted robbed you, not because he stole more but because he broke your trust. Trust is a vulnerability of one person based on the belief that the other will act in a way to benefit the person placing the trust. The government made him sign a contract and placed trust in him, he broke that trust and it feels a lot worse than if a foreign spy stole the information.

sebster wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:What "suffering" is being inflicted on him for suffering's sake? Seriously. I want to know this. Everything I've heard from all the "Free Manning!" garbage is that he's "being horribly mistreated" by his time in prison.

I already listed it. If you're not going to read other people's posts, go away.

I read it. None of that is "suffering". That's common practice for prisons with inmates who pose a danger to themselves. It's not uncommon for mental hospitals either.

It's really his own damned fault in this situation. His claims of "humiliation" were that he felt embarrassed being seen naked by the other detainees. Well, maybe next time don't crack a suicide joke when guards have already reported observing the symptoms of depression.

He was only kept naked for the period of inspection.

That's not what I'm getting from my readings.

On March 2, he was told that an Article 138 complaint filed in January by his lawyer—asking that he be removed from maximum custody and prevention-of-injury watch—had been denied. His lawyer said Manning subsequently joked to the guards that, if he wanted to harm himself, he could do so "with the elastic waistband of his underwear or with his flip-flops." This resulted in him being required to sleep without clothing and present himself naked outside his cell for morning inspection, which his lawyer described as ritual humiliation, though from around March 10 onwards he was given a wrap-around smock with Velcro fasteners to sleep in. In response to the incident, the brig psychiatrist classified him as at low risk of suicide.

Of course, I'm going to assume you'll point to "required to sleep without clothing" as evidence of some kind of wrongdoing. It's, once again, not unheard of for prisons. It's so that they can ensure that the prisoner has no injuries with a cursory glance.

When left to his own devices he was free to sit about in his underpants and their oh so deadly elastic.
The justification was ludicrous, and here you are believing it.

It's really not that ludicrous though. They take no chances with prisoners. There's a reason he was wearing flip flops--or do you think shoe laces are a brilliant idea for a potentially depressed and suicidal individual?

Given that there's two major things involved here:
1) The mistaken assumption that he was placed in solitary as "punishment" and the ignorance that you're portraying by just glossing over the fact that every single Marine in the Quantico brig is housed the same way. I've said it once before: the lawyer has even said that this is the way the cells are laid out.
2) Ignoring the fact that the guards(and visitors as well) previously had reported that Manning seemed depressed and withdrawn(which isn't uncommon in prisoners as they're taken into pretrial housing. That's when the most suicides will happen, as security standards are more lax and in medium security facilities like the one he's been transferred to inmates who can't cope are deemed suicide risks) and then made a joking comment about suicide. That would be a political nightmare if he'd offed himself. The conspiracy theories would never end, and someone would be painted as the next Jack Ruby.

Now, is it likely that him being housed at Quantico is too much? Maybe. But at the same time: this is a military case. He was active duty, serving in a combat zone when he committed the crime.

'Objector' to the war or not: he broke the rules. He's being housed until his punishment. Until then he's the responsibility of the military and the government.

It's always possible that he'll get put into a mental facility though. Not betting on it however.

I just hope the coverage of Osama's death will stop being repeated over and over on TV. We can't spare the time from re-runs, highlights and follow ups on the Royal Wedding.

Bloody Americans and their issues dominating the media!

SilverMK2 wrote:I just hope the coverage of Osama's death will stop being repeated over and over on TV. We can't spare the time from re-runs, highlights and follow ups on the Royal Wedding.

Bloody Americans and their issues dominating the media!

The media are in a feeding frenzy right now. It will all go back to normal when the next newsy thing happens. Too bad it stepped on the wedding.

Kanluwen wrote:
I read it. None of that is "suffering". That's common practice for prisons with inmates who pose a danger to themselves. It's not uncommon for mental hospitals either.

The two concepts are not exclusive, you know. Indeed, suffering is inflicted via common practice fairly often in much of the world.

SilverMK2 wrote:I just hope the coverage of Osama's death will stop being repeated over and over on TV. We can't spare the time from re-runs, highlights and follow ups on the Royal Wedding.

Bloody Americans and their issues dominating the media!

Repetition is the best form of brain washing.

So now that the War on Terror has met its objectives of taking Saddam out of power and killing Osama bin Laden all the troops and reserves will be coming home for July 4th?

There is a good reason to dance in the street.

Lusall wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
From a nation founded on such ideals as guerilla warfare and rebellion against a recognised state, its particularly ironic. Once upon a time the US wasn't "legitimate" either, until it became so through military action which earned it political recognition.

Sorry, when did the American Revolution send ships packed with explosives into the Thames? I must have dozed off during that part of my history courses.

You're equating what was, at best, armed rebellion against an occupying army with an international group who really only targeted civilians.

If the Revolution had, perhaps, snuck groups of people into Britain and ran around butchering the families of the British soldiers in the country you might have a point.

But they didn't and you don't.

Only targeted civilians? And the soldiers in Afghanistan just fall over dead of their own accord do they? Or are those responsible for terror attacks against western troops in Afghanistan not connected to "The Axis of Evil" and Al Quaeda any more? The impression given is certainly that Al Quaeda et al are one huge homogenous terrorist body with tendrils in every organisation, whether they be Afgan "freedom fighters" or Libyan Anti-Gaddafi rebels.

You're looking too much into the details of the example and not enough on the general point.. that once upon a time the USA was an un-recognised and illegitimate force engaged in combat of one form or another with the legitimate government of the area. The manner of that combat is not really relevant, simply the status of the combatants.

Once again, you show an astounding amount of ignorance with regards to the reasons why the American Revolution was fought, how it was executed, and the outcome of the conflict. Trying to link the American revolution with the war on terror is like comparing apples to tomatoes. There are similarities, like there are similarities between just about every conflict in history. So now you've made your point...what have you proven?

Once again, someone appears to have missed various points I have raised..probably due to me having to respond to so many posts at once, a greater number of which gleefully misrepresent what I am saying, or are just plain insulting. You clearly haven't understood the comparison between the powerful state machine/Imperial regime, and the efforts of lesser "illegitimate" forces to oppose that regime. A very very very truncated and short summation of a conflict into a couple of sentences is not "ignorance". A comparison of the sort of arguments that happen with American citizens around the Fourth of July would demonstrate my point quite succinctly, as they engage in plenty of Anti-British/Anti-Monarchist Braveheart-style "Freedom from oppression" rhetoric. Is your reaction actually based on imagined historical inaccuracy in my statement, or a desire to demonstrate that the Revolution was fought on "higher" principles because it is unimaginable that the USA could be linked with "terror"?

Dude, just drop it. This is neither the time, nor the place.

sebster wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:I was going to say that the most disturbing aspect of this is that the US feels that it can, with impunity, fall upon a person anywhere in the world and summarily execute them without trial or any other due process in what is either a war crime or an assassination.

They can't operate anywhere they want. Pakistan gave the US authority to operate on its soil. You should have read about it in the news, it was a pretty big deal a few years ago.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:I've got your barbarism right here

You're on a forum filled mostly with teenagers, most of whom a war nerds. It really shouldn't be any surprise that a significant number like to play games about being really mean to bad guys.

I mean, there is an important point to be made about the dubious nature of US moral authority, particularly in the wake* of the US actually initiating policies for torturing prisoners, but if you actually care about that cause, and not just about being self-righteous on the internet, then you're really better off keeping those concerns to other thread, because you're extremely unlikely to convince anyone that the operation to kill Osama was morally dubious at all.




*Well, arguably we're still in the midst of it, really, we just stopped talking about when Obama won.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:I think its clear that Arbeits is a troll, or a sympathizer, but most likely a troll.

I think we need less accusations of trolling around here, to be honest. There is a big difference between someone with a contraversial, minority opinion, and someone who's just saying something to upset the forum.

It seems to me like Arbeitschu is a guy with a strong interest in due process, and he just picked a really bad thread to try and make that point.

It gets tedious having to repeat points, but it seems its neccessary. I'm aware of the general nature of this forum and its posters. Which is why I already pointed out numerous times that as well as the comments in this thread, I am also referring to similar commentary coming from a variety of sources. A teenage war-gaming nerd advocating torture is one thing, but when servicemen (to pick an example) also advocate it. it snowballs, because a serving soldier is much more likely to be in a position to engage in it.

As for "right thread"... I see no reason to withhold commenting on the lack of due process just because a thread is mostly made up of Americans waving the flag. Be a dull world indeed if we only ever spoke out to people who agreed with us. Sadly, it quickly dissolved into people disagreeing with what they decided I had said, not what I actually said.

I'm slightly more offended that I got called a terrorist sympathiser because I desire to see due process followed than I am about "troll."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The fact that people are posting about Manning as if he is already tried and found guilty is exactly what I was getting at. He stands accused of various acts of treason etc etc. He has yet to be found guilty. Accusation is not proof of guilt.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:Dude, just drop it. This is neither the time, nor the place.

Its exactly the time, because its fresh...and as it is a thread about Bin Laden being shot, its the right place as well.

So, basically you're just trying to crowbar your opinions on American foreign policy and treatment of detainees into a thread based around American triumphalist braggadocio? Did you see that ending WELL?


Clue: It hasn't ended well. This thread is farcical.

Albatross wrote:So, basically you're just trying to crowbar your opinions on American foreign policy and treatment of detainees into a thread based around American triumphalist braggadocio? Did you see that ending WELL?


Clue: It hasn't ended well. This thread is farcical.

I comment on matters because I feel matters needed commenting on. I don't do it because I expect everyone to pat me on the back or suddenly change their minds en masse and admit they are wrong. "Ending Well" isn't my objective.

Far as I'm concerned, if my comments* make just one person think "Maybe its wrong for me to say I hope he shat himself to death and wish they had dragged him behind a truck" and actually consider things beyond bloodthirsty revenge, then its a win.

*anywhere, not just in this thread.

"edit"


Guess I shouldnt post things early in the morning.

Phototoxin wrote:
I thought he had 'doubles' like most of these guys?

A double wouldn't be a genetic match.

I am aware of that, that's why I question the speed of which they did the DNA test. Results seemed instantaneous. It would probably take at least 5 hours working flat out once it got to the lab.

halonachos wrote:Anybody else think that this may become a national holiday?

Was for me and I didn't even know it.
-Gas for going to a friend's wedding in deep deep hippy Austin. US$4.00
-Losing dispute with Wife after she hit curb pulling into wedding location. Will pay later...
-Price for attending wedding: 1 wine, 1 champaign, and three shots of rum
-Coming back and finding we'd finally fingered the Big Bad Guy-priceless.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

snurl wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:I just hope the coverage of Osama's death will stop being repeated over and over on TV. We can't spare the time from re-runs, highlights and follow ups on the Royal Wedding.

Bloody Americans and their issues dominating the media!

The media are in a feeding frenzy right now. It will all go back to normal when the next newsy thing happens. Thank God it stepped on the wedding.

Corrected your typo.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

Albatross wrote:So, basically you're just trying to crowbar your opinions on American foreign policy and treatment of detainees into a thread based around American triumphalist braggadocio? Did you see that ending WELL?


Clue: It hasn't ended well. This thread is farcical.

I comment on matters because I feel matters needed commenting on. I don't do it because I expect everyone to pat me on the back or suddenly change their minds en masse and admit they are wrong. "Ending Well" isn't my objective.

Far as I'm concerned, if my comments* make just one person think "Maybe its wrong for me to say I hope he shat himself to death and wish they had dragged him behind a truck" and actually consider things beyond bloodthirsty revenge, then its a win.

*anywhere, not just in this thread.

I don't think what I said is wrong. I'm the guy that (lets see if I can find what you said about me, ah, here we go)

ArbeitsSchu wrote:Another poster suggested torture (for a chocolate bar no less) would be appropriate, despite torture being provably noneffective as an information gathering tool and it being done for fun , And that's just on this forum

And I'm not some teenager with a war fetish. I am an adult working full time (thus I haven't been here the last 9 pages to defend myself) lost 2 family members in 9/11, live 20 minutes away from where the 4th plane crashed (amazing how many people around here don't remember that) and I lost a 3rd family member in Afghanistan. I would agree with what I would do to him is barbaric and uncivilized, but unlike you, and most likely a lot of the posters here, I have daily reminders of what has been taken from me and mine by the actions of this man. So you can sit there at your computer across the ocean and tell us what we feel is wrong. But we don't care


EDIT: grammar

I myself am glad that Osama Bin Laden is gone.
We here in England have had our fair share of Terrorist Atrocities over the last 40 years, and I can only imagine what the good people of NY city went throu nearly 10 years ago.

Go on and celebrate my friends across the pond!

Congratulations!

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

Albatross wrote:So, basically you're just trying to crowbar your opinions on American foreign policy and treatment of detainees into a thread based around American triumphalist braggadocio? Did you see that ending WELL?


Clue: It hasn't ended well. This thread is farcical.

I comment on matters because I feel matters needed commenting on. I don't do it because I expect everyone to pat me on the back or suddenly change their minds en masse and admit they are wrong. "Ending Well" isn't my objective.

Far as I'm concerned, if my comments* make just one person think "Maybe its wrong for me to say I hope he shat himself to death and wish they had dragged him behind a truck" and actually consider things beyond bloodthirsty revenge, then its a win.

*anywhere, not just in this thread.

Yes, and I'm sure you think that's noble. It isn't. It just reads as inflammatory to pretty much everyone here, because this isn't a thread about about why America is considered The Great Satan. If you want to talk about that, start a thread on it - hell, I'll probably contribute to the discussion. But coming here and posting what you have posted just looks like you're trying to thumb your nose at the Americans here by pissing on their chips. Osama is dead. Good riddance. Let them be happy about it.

In fact, YOU should be happy about it, considering he killed so many of our countrymen. Yes, some of our Yank brethren are going a little over-the-top with the whole 'USA! USA! USA!' thing, but on the whole, I'm glad they capped him. Dude was prick who would have slit your throat on camera without a moments hesitation, lest we forget.

Albatross wrote:braggadocio?
Clue: It hasn't ended well. This thread is farcical.

I agree this thread is farcial...

however, braggadocio sounds like something I would order in my local deli