Kerry Says Snowden Should "Man Up" and Return to US

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.

**Ouze**

Relapse defending Kerry? My mind is blown. You think you know someone, man.

I agree, of course - Kerry's war record is often criticized by chickenhawks and armchair commanders. The man signed to serve his country and returned a war hero, the fact he decided after tasted war that he liked the taste of peace better doesn't make him less macho to me.

**Jihadin**

Silver Star for opting out an wounded insurgent and capturing his weapon.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Isn't there grounds to impeach Obama over this whole NSA mess? After all, in front of millions, he swore an oath to defend the constitution, but on his watch, clear violations of the 4th amendment have been allowed to take place.
Andrew Johnson lost his presidency for less than that.

As for traitors, I've said many a time that American history is full of traitors, and most of them have high schools named after them. Maybe Snowden will get the same treatment one day?

**Co'tor Shas**

Ahtman wrote:
Relapse wrote:
Dust wrote:
I think it's tremendously ironic for Kerry to tell someone to "man up"

Is it? From Wiki on Kerry's military service:

Don't forget this wiki page.

You realize that that is all bunk right?

**Ouze**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Isn't there grounds to impeach Obama over this whole NSA mess? After all, in front of millions, he swore an oath to defend the constitution, but on his watch, clear violations of the 4th amendment have been allowed to take place.
Andrew Johnson lost his presidency for less than that.

1.) You can impeach a president - any president - for whatever you like, as long as 2/3rd of the senate agree with it. "High crimes and misdemeanors" is left intentionally vague.

2.) Clear violations of the 4th amendment - clear to whom, exactly? You? Any evidence that what the NSA is doing was not signed off on by Congress? Quite the contrary - the FISA court has repeatedly signed off on these activities. 7 times, I believe. I hope you also called for an impeachment of Mr. Bush back when he was doing his wiretapping without even bothering to get the rubber stamp from FISA to legalize it.

There is a good article here, discussing the legality of the NSA program. It's up in the air until the SCOTUS weighs in. Even if it's found unconstitutional, the chances of Obama being impeached over it are not as good as the chances of me hooking up with Kate Upton. The Republicans are well aware that impeachment will never work, and even seriously talking about doing the proceedings will tank their approval ratings and cost them the midterms.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Ouze wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Isn't there grounds to impeach Obama over this whole NSA mess? After all, in front of millions, he swore an oath to defend the constitution, but on his watch, clear violations of the 4th amendment have been allowed to take place.
Andrew Johnson lost his presidency for less than that.

1.) You can impeach a president - any president - for whatever you like, as long as 2/3rd of the senate agree with it. "High crimes and misdemeanors" is left intentionally vague.

2.) Clear violations of the 4th amendment - clear to whom, exactly? You? Any evidence that what the NSA is doing was not signed off on by Congress? Quite the contrary - the FISA court has repeatedly signed off on these activities. 7 times, I believe. I hope you also called for an impeachment of Mr. Bush back when he was doing his wiretapping without even bothering to get the rubber stamp from FISA to legalize it.

There is a good article here, discussing the legality of the NSA program. It's up in the air until the SCOTUS weighs in. Even if it's found unconstitutional, the chances of Obama being impeached over it are not as good as the chances of me hooking up with Kate Upton. The Republicans are well aware that impeachment will never work, and even seriously talking about doing the proceedings will tank their approval ratings and cost them the midterms.

I was pretty critical of Bush during his office (thought I never stooped to the level of calling him an idiot or the people that voted for him idiots) and would have happily seen him impeached. So it's not a case of anti-Obama just for the sake of it. Personally, regarding assaults on the freedoms of Americans, I think the rot set in after the Oklahoma bombing when Clinton passed his anti-terrorism and death penalty act, so the trend has been on going for the last twenty years, at least. As for the rest, we'll have to agree to disagree.

And finally: who the hell is Kate Upton?

**chaos0xomega**

I agree with Kerry (never thought I'd say that). To me the fact that he wasn't willing to face the consequences of his actions, and that he continues to sit on a cache of information as an 'insurance policy', makes him an attention seeking coward more than any sort of freedom fighter or whistleblower. The fact that he fled to nations with an even worse track record of human rights abuses for asylum makes him a hypocrite. If you're going to blow a whistle, if you're going to fight for something, and stand up against authority for something you believe in, you can't half-ass it, you have to commit to it, you have to be prepared for any and all possible outcomes, you have to take responsibility for your actions and be prepared to face the consequences. Of course, I suppose I can't really blame him, since that is a concept seemingly lost upon the majority of our generation, but that is the truth of the matter nonetheless. His refusal to face the repercussions of his actions simply serves to cheapen his cause and lessen the impact of what he did. I am sure if he stood trial, just or not, his resulting testimony would have just as much an impact, if not moreso, than the information he released.

Daniel Ellsberg, responsible for the release of the Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam War, turned himself in to the authorities to face the consequences of his actions (as he himself stated). Hell, Manning (who I have very little respect for due to the complete disregard shown for the lives of others who may have been jeopardized as a result of her leaks, let alone the seeming lack of any real appreciation for why she was releasing classified information, other than 'we're doing bad things and we should feel bad') even stood trial and faced the consequences. What makes Snowden so special that he shouldn't?

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Easy E wrote:
Tell that to Bradley Manning.

Difference is, Manning is a fething traitor, and worthless scum in my eyes... I'm sorry, you simply just do NOT do what he/she/it did to the people who wear the same uniform as you do.

I don't know what kind of "oaths" or whatever Snowden had to say as part of being a civilian contractor, but Manning had a whole lot more riding on him than Snowden.

Agreed. Anyone who thinks Manning was a hero needs to get their head checked. Snowden did the CORRECT thing, in that he was selective about what was released and careful to make sure to minimize putting people in danger. On top of that, Snowden understood WHY he was doing what he did, in that it was unconstitutional, morally wrong, and dangerously close to something out of 1984 for it to continue, and on top of that, he tried going through more proper channels before taking matters into his own hands.

You don't see ANY of that from Manning, and the whole thing only reeks of misguided attention seeking.

I initially thought that Snowden was a traitor, but now that the full scope of the NSA's activities have come to light, I'm no longer so sure about that.

I would argue that we still don't know the full scope of its activities, only the full scope related to one specific set of activities. Also keep in mind that much of what Snowden leaked evidently remains unpublished.

I think his point is that the military held Manning in solitary confinement without filing charges for over a year. During which he didn't have a bed, wasn't allowed to speak or exercise, and had jailors wake him every four hours (as a "precaution against suicide"). The UN Special Rapporteur called the conditions "cruel, inhuman and degrading."

There was a time when we charged someone with a crime and carried out the sentence, following the law. Instead, our system now locks alleged criminals away without access to trial or attorney. The military picked some people up in Afghanistan who've been sitting in prison for eight years without any charges. Once upon a time, if you couldn't convict someone in a court of law, then they weren't criminals.

How could anyone of sound mind (like Snowden) turn themselves into that sort of corrupt system? We used to give our citizens due process.

To be fair (not that I'm defending Mannings treatment), the laws/act under which Manning was charged (and it was, in fact, correct to charge him on it) basically allow for that treatment as it would be a national security risk to follow the process that you outlined. Personally I find the treatment of the Club Gitmo detainees to be more disturbing and less morally/legally justifiable.

I also think he lost his "warrior of the people for truth and justice" credibility when he willingly became Putin's sockpuppet.

This.

I seem to recall Snowden challenging Putin on Russian National TV over their own domestic spying programs. NOt exactly sock puppet behaviour.

LOL, 'challenged'? Even by his own admission he gave Putin a softball question which Putin then proceeded to hit into a home run, making himself look great and Obama a tyrant, all the while lying through his teeth.

thenoobbomb wrote:
Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Wait wait wait.

What's this about aliens?

Snowden leaked a blatantly false accusation that the Government had covered up the existence of aliens.

I thought the documents that he released regarding UFO's were part of some training course

Along with zombies, I recall.

I don't believe that Snowden actually leaked any of this, rather certain 'independent news sources' (and in this case I'm not using the term positively) simply claimed they were included as part of the leak, with absolutely nothing to substantiate it.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Isn't there grounds to impeach Obama over this whole NSA mess? After all, in front of millions, he swore an oath to defend the constitution, but on his watch, clear violations of the 4th amendment have been allowed to take place.
Andrew Johnson lost his presidency for less than that.

As for traitors, I've said many a time that American history is full of traitors, and most of them have high schools named after them. Maybe Snowden will get the same treatment one day?

Societally we've become more accepting of these violations, I'm pretty sure we've had pretty legitimate grounds to impeach every President since Kennedy, we only attempted going after two of them, and (I would argue) not for the reasons we should have.

**Co'tor Shas**

chaos0xomega wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Isn't there grounds to impeach Obama over this whole NSA mess? After all, in front of millions, he swore an oath to defend the constitution, but on his watch, clear violations of the 4th amendment have been allowed to take place.
Andrew Johnson lost his presidency for less than that.

As for traitors, I've said many a time that American history is full of traitors, and most of them have high schools named after them. Maybe Snowden will get the same treatment one day?

Societally we've become more accepting of these violations, I'm pretty sure we've had pretty legitimate grounds to impeach every President since Kennedy, we only attempted going after two of them, and (I would argue) not for the reasons we should have.

Two? The only one I can think of is Clinton.

**Seaward**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
Two? The only one I can think of is Clinton.

The other one's Nixon.

**Co'tor Shas**

Seaward wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
Two? The only one I can think of is Clinton.

The other one's Nixon.

I thought he stepped down before it could happen?

**Ahtman**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
Relapse wrote:
Dust wrote:
I think it's tremendously ironic for Kerry to tell someone to "man up"

Is it? From Wiki on Kerry's military service:

Don't forget this wiki page.

You realize that that is all bunk right?

Yeah, but the smear campaign against his service is important to understand why some people don't like him. It was pretty nasty during the election.

**Co'tor Shas**

Ahtman wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
Relapse wrote:
Dust wrote:
I think it's tremendously ironic for Kerry to tell someone to "man up"

Is it? From Wiki on Kerry's military service:

Don't forget this wiki page.

You realize that that is all bunk right?

Yeah, but the smear campaign against his service is important to understand why some people don't like him. It was pretty nasty during the election.

Ah, I thought you we saying that was true.

**Seaward**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
I thought he stepped down before it could happen?

He did, but they were making moves on impeachment proceedings, so it's fair to say he was "gone after."

**whembly**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Ouze wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Isn't there grounds to impeach Obama over this whole NSA mess? After all, in front of millions, he swore an oath to defend the constitution, but on his watch, clear violations of the 4th amendment have been allowed to take place.
Andrew Johnson lost his presidency for less than that.

1.) You can impeach a president - any president - for whatever you like, as long as 2/3rd of the senate agree with it. "High crimes and misdemeanors" is left intentionally vague.

2.) Clear violations of the 4th amendment - clear to whom, exactly? You? Any evidence that what the NSA is doing was not signed off on by Congress? Quite the contrary - the FISA court has repeatedly signed off on these activities. 7 times, I believe. I hope you also called for an impeachment of Mr. Bush back when he was doing his wiretapping without even bothering to get the rubber stamp from FISA to legalize it.

There is a good article here, discussing the legality of the NSA program. It's up in the air until the SCOTUS weighs in. Even if it's found unconstitutional, the chances of Obama being impeached over it are not as good as the chances of me hooking up with Kate Upton. The Republicans are well aware that impeachment will never work, and even seriously talking about doing the proceedings will tank their approval ratings and cost them the midterms.

I was pretty critical of Bush during his office (thought I never stooped to the level of calling him an idiot or the people that voted for him idiots) and would have happily seen him impeached. So it's not a case of anti-Obama just for the sake of it. Personally, regarding assaults on the freedoms of Americans, I think the rot set in after the Oklahoma bombing when Clinton passed his anti-terrorism and death penalty act, so the trend has been on going for the last twenty years, at least. As for the rest, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Obama won't be impeached... out of all scandals going on, none of them are impeached worthy (unless there's irrefutable evidence he ordered the IRS hassle of conservative groups... VERY improbable).

The only thing that can be remotely the case, is his Drone policies that allows targeting of Americans. Even then... not even close.

And finally: who the hell is Kate Upton?

Seriously?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Co'tor Shas wrote:
Seaward wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
Two? The only one I can think of is Clinton.

The other one's Nixon.

I thought he stepped down before it could happen?

Yeah... but, it would've happened.

**Fafnir**

chaos0xomega wrote:
I agree with Kerry (never thought I'd say that). To me the fact that he wasn't willing to face the consequences of his actions, and that he continues to sit on a cache of information as an 'insurance policy', makes him an attention seeking coward more than any sort of freedom fighter or whistleblower. The fact that he fled to nations with an even worse track record of human rights abuses for asylum makes him a hypocrite. If you're going to blow a whistle, if you're going to fight for something, and stand up against authority for something you believe in, you can't half-ass it, you have to commit to it, you have to be prepared for any and all possible outcomes, you have to take responsibility for your actions and be prepared to face the consequences. Of course, I suppose I can't really blame him, since that is a concept seemingly lost upon the majority of our generation, but that is the truth of the matter nonetheless. His refusal to face the repercussions of his actions simply serves to cheapen his cause and lessen the impact of what he did. I am sure if he stood trial, just or not, his resulting testimony would have just as much an impact, if not moreso, than the information he released.

Daniel Ellsberg, responsible for the release of the Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam War, turned himself in to the authorities to face the consequences of his actions (as he himself stated). Hell, Manning (who I have very little respect for due to the complete disregard shown for the lives of others who may have been jeopardized as a result of her leaks, let alone the seeming lack of any real appreciation for why she was releasing classified information, other than 'we're doing bad things and we should feel bad') even stood trial and faced the consequences. What makes Snowden so special that he shouldn't?

So he should have freely given himself over to be tortured and killed in silence, as the government goes and covers everything up without interference? There's no way he'd ever be given a fair trial (and he probably wouldn't even make it to a trial, anyway).

As for why he's in Russia, it's not his choice. There aren't a whole lot of pleasant places in the world that won't extradite to the US. And getting to them involves taking some fairly substandard routes.

**chaos0xomega**

It's unlikely he would have been tortured and/or killed, he's much too high profile, and if you really believe that to be the case then you drank a bit too much of the kool aid. For all the stupid, if not outright wrong, gak that the government does, even that would be going too far.

As for fair trial... no comment. He would have made it to trial... eventually... though he would most certainly have been detained until that point.

And he most certainly *did* have a choice, he chose to remain free rather than to face the judicial system. To his credit however (based on his recent interview), it seems that he at least understands that he should and will face a prison sentence, and is trying to negotiate a deal for a reasonable term rather than the likely 10-20 mandatory he would have to face otherwise IIRC.

**Gentleman_Jellyfish**

chaos0xomega wrote:
It's unlikely he would have been tortured and/or killed, he's much too high profile, and if you really believe that to be the case then you drank a bit too much of the kool aid. For all the stupid, if not outright wrong, gak that the government does, even that would be going too far.

A wee bit ironic

A bit of Bradley Manning, yes?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/mar/12/bradley-manning-cruel-inhuman-treatment-un

Juan Mendez has completed a 14-month investigation into the treatment of Manning since the soldier's arrest at a US military base in May 2010. He concludes that the US military was at least culpable of cruel and inhumane treatment in keeping Manning locked up alone for 23 hours a day over an 11-month period in conditions that he also found might have constituted torture.

"The special rapporteur concludes that imposing seriously punitive conditions of detention on someone who has not been found guilty of any crime is a violation of his right to physical and psychological integrity as well as of his presumption of innocence," Mendez writes.

Edit: Make of this what you will

A Typical Day for PFC Bradley Manning

PFC Manning is currently being held in maximum custody. Since arriving at the Quantico Confinement Facility in July of 2010, he has been held under Prevention of Injury (POI) watch.

His cell is approximately six feet wide and twelve feet in length.

The cell has a bed, a drinking fountain, and a toilet.

The guards at the confinement facility are professional. At no time have they tried to bully, harass, or embarrass PFC Manning. Given the nature of their job, however, they do not engage in conversation with PFC Manning.

At 5:00 a.m. he is woken up (on weekends, he is allowed to sleep until 7:00 a.m.). Under the rules for the confinement facility, he is not allowed to sleep at anytime between 5:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. If he attempts to sleep during those hours, he will be made to sit up or stand by the guards.

He is allowed to watch television during the day. The television stations are limited to the basic local stations. His access to the television ranges from 1 to 3 hours on weekdays to 3 to 6 hours on weekends.

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.

From 7:00 p.m. to 9:20 p.m., he is given correspondence time. He is given access to a pen and paper. He is allowed to write letters to family, friends, and his attorneys.

Each night, during his correspondence time, he is allowed to take a 15 to 20 minute shower.

On weekends and holidays, he is allowed to have approved visitors see him from 12:00 to 3:00 p.m.

He is allowed to receive letters from those on his approved list and from his legal counsel. If he receives a letter from someone not on his approved list, he must sign a rejection form. The letter is then either returned to the sender or destroyed.

He is allowed to have any combination of up to 15 books or magazines. He must request the book or magazine by name. Once the book or magazine has been reviewed by the literary board at the confinement facility, and approved, he is allowed to have someone on his approved list send it to him. The person sending the book or magazine to him must do so through a publisher or an approved distributor such as Amazon. They are not allowed to mail the book or magazine directly to PFC Manning.

Due to being held on Prevention of Injury (POI) watch:

PFC Manning is held in his cell for approximately 23 hours a day.

The guards are required to check on PFC Manning every five minutes by asking him if he is okay. PFC Manning is required to respond in some affirmative manner. At night, if the guards cannot see PFC Manning clearly, because he has a blanket over his head or is curled up towards the wall, they will wake him in order to ensure he is okay.

He receives each of his meals in his cell.

He is not allowed to have a pillow or sheets. However, he is given access to two blankets and has recently been given a new mattress that has a built-in pillow.

He is not allowed to have any personal items in his cell.

He is only allowed to have one book or one magazine at any given time to read in his cell. The book or magazine is taken away from him at the end of the day before he goes to sleep.

He is prevented from exercising in his cell. If he attempts to do push-ups, sit-ups, or any other form of exercise he will be forced to stop.

He does receive one hour of “exercise” outside of his cell daily. He is taken to an empty room and only allowed to walk. PFC Manning normally just walks figure eights in the room for the entire hour. If he indicates that he no long feels like walking, he is immediately returned to his cell.

When PFC Manning goes to sleep, he is required to strip down to his boxer shorts and surrender his clothing to the guards. His clothing is returned to him the next morning.

**Ensis Ferrae**

And again, I'll point out that PFC manning is exactly that.... a PRIVATE FIRST CLASS. This means that he is in the Army, part of the DoD, which has it's own "special" brand of justice called the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or UCMJ for short.

Claiming that he has the same exact special daisy privileges as any other schmuck who gets put in prison is fething mental. He signed the dotted line, he swore the oath, he KNEW what he was getting into.

Stop conflating the civilian justice system, and the "rights" contained therein with the UCMJ. There are reasons we actually do give up certain rights during the time we wear the uniform.

**Kain**

Ketara wrote:
Let's see......spend the next ten years in solitary confinement in America, or live in isolation in communist Russia....

Great choices.

Putin's Russia is about as communist as Burger King.

**Bromsy**

Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
It's unlikely he would have been tortured and/or killed, he's much too high profile, and if you really believe that to be the case then you drank a bit too much of the kool aid. For all the stupid, if not outright wrong, gak that the government does, even that would be going too far.

A wee bit ironic

A bit of Bradley Manning, yes?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/mar/12/bradley-manning-cruel-inhuman-treatment-un

Juan Mendez has completed a 14-month investigation into the treatment of Manning since the soldier's arrest at a US military base in May 2010. He concludes that the US military was at least culpable of cruel and inhumane treatment in keeping Manning locked up alone for 23 hours a day over an 11-month period in conditions that he also found might have constituted torture.

"The special rapporteur concludes that imposing seriously punitive conditions of detention on someone who has not been found guilty of any crime is a violation of his right to physical and psychological integrity as well as of his presumption of innocence," Mendez writes.

Edit: Make of this what you will

A Typical Day for PFC Bradley Manning

PFC Manning is currently being held in maximum custody. Since arriving at the Quantico Confinement Facility in July of 2010, he has been held under Prevention of Injury (POI) watch.

His cell is approximately six feet wide and twelve feet in length.

The cell has a bed, a drinking fountain, and a toilet.

The guards at the confinement facility are professional. At no time have they tried to bully, harass, or embarrass PFC Manning. Given the nature of their job, however, they do not engage in conversation with PFC Manning.

At 5:00 a.m. he is woken up (on weekends, he is allowed to sleep until 7:00 a.m.). Under the rules for the confinement facility, he is not allowed to sleep at anytime between 5:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. If he attempts to sleep during those hours, he will be made to sit up or stand by the guards.

He is allowed to watch television during the day. The television stations are limited to the basic local stations. His access to the television ranges from 1 to 3 hours on weekdays to 3 to 6 hours on weekends.

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.

From 7:00 p.m. to 9:20 p.m., he is given correspondence time. He is given access to a pen and paper. He is allowed to write letters to family, friends, and his attorneys.

Each night, during his correspondence time, he is allowed to take a 15 to 20 minute shower.

On weekends and holidays, he is allowed to have approved visitors see him from 12:00 to 3:00 p.m.

He is allowed to receive letters from those on his approved list and from his legal counsel. If he receives a letter from someone not on his approved list, he must sign a rejection form. The letter is then either returned to the sender or destroyed.

He is allowed to have any combination of up to 15 books or magazines. He must request the book or magazine by name. Once the book or magazine has been reviewed by the literary board at the confinement facility, and approved, he is allowed to have someone on his approved list send it to him. The person sending the book or magazine to him must do so through a publisher or an approved distributor such as Amazon. They are not allowed to mail the book or magazine directly to PFC Manning.

Due to being held on Prevention of Injury (POI) watch:

PFC Manning is held in his cell for approximately 23 hours a day.

The guards are required to check on PFC Manning every five minutes by asking him if he is okay. PFC Manning is required to respond in some affirmative manner. At night, if the guards cannot see PFC Manning clearly, because he has a blanket over his head or is curled up towards the wall, they will wake him in order to ensure he is okay.

He receives each of his meals in his cell.

He is not allowed to have a pillow or sheets. However, he is given access to two blankets and has recently been given a new mattress that has a built-in pillow.

He is not allowed to have any personal items in his cell.

He is only allowed to have one book or one magazine at any given time to read in his cell. The book or magazine is taken away from him at the end of the day before he goes to sleep.

He is prevented from exercising in his cell. If he attempts to do push-ups, sit-ups, or any other form of exercise he will be forced to stop.

He does receive one hour of “exercise” outside of his cell daily. He is taken to an empty room and only allowed to walk. PFC Manning normally just walks figure eights in the room for the entire hour. If he indicates that he no long feels like walking, he is immediately returned to his cell.

When PFC Manning goes to sleep, he is required to strip down to his boxer shorts and surrender his clothing to the guards. His clothing is returned to him the next morning.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/may/04/bradley-manning-jail-conditions-improve

**Jihadin**

He has been switched from maximum security to medium custody, which affords him many more rights and liberties, and he is no longer being held under a prevention of injury watch that imposed harsh conditions.

Pretrial confinement to post trial

**Ketara**

Kain wrote:
Ketara wrote:
Let's see......spend the next ten years in solitary confinement in America, or live in isolation in communist Russia....

Great choices.

Putin's Russia is about as communist as Burger King.

I was being somewhat tongue in cheek. But points for trying?

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
And again, I'll point out that PFC manning is exactly that.... a PRIVATE FIRST CLASS. This means that he is in the Army, part of the DoD, which has it's own "special" brand of justice called the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or UCMJ for short.

Claiming that he has the same exact special daisy privileges as any other schmuck who gets put in prison is fething mental. He signed the dotted line, he swore the oath, he KNEW what he was getting into.

Stop conflating the civilian justice system, and the "rights" contained therein with the UCMJ. There are reasons we actually do give up certain rights during the time we wear the uniform.

Yeah, I agree to an extent, but isn't part of the oath swearing to protect the constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic. You could argue that he thought he was doing the right thing to protect the constitution.

Not having a go at you, personally, but as I've said before, oaths are meaningless without moral context. Staffenburg broke his oath when he tried to blow up Hitler. George Washington broke his oath of allegiance to the British crown when he rebelled. So, it's not always black and white.

**djones520**

Just because he "thought" he was doing the right thing, does not mean you are doing the right thing.

Generally what an E-3 thinks is right, is anything but. That's just my 12 years of experience speaking.

**Fafnir**

NSA releases Snowden email after denying its existence

Very relevant.

**Palindrome**

djones520 wrote:

Generally what an E-3 thinks is right, is anything but. That's just my 12 years of experience speaking.

I bet your juniors just love you.

**Jihadin**

I back his twelve with my 23 years. Lower Enlisted still have that inner civilian glow to them till about their first major Article 15, deployment, and/or couple years under their belt. Or a combination two of three.

My learning experience was two Article 15's

**Palindrome**

Well my 10 years says different, perhaps we just have a lot better juniors than you do. They are adults, treat them like adults and they will behave like adults.

I have noticed that Americans like to use the autocratic leadership style, its not the best for developing subordinates.

**Jihadin**

We comparing Brit to US lower enlisted? Its two different animals same as our leadership style. Your style is not mine and not DJ but DJ style is not mine nor yours nor my style either of yours. We develope our leadership style from former NCO's appointed over us. First though. I am not a "Friend", a "buddy", a "Sarge", go by first names, nor share beers with lower enlisted. I am a NCO and conducted myself as such. Either meet or exceed my standards, be on time, at the right place and in the right uniform. Duty. Discipline. Respect. Knowledge. This is the US Military not "insert another country" military (mainly those that allow beer)

Edit

I'm not bashing Palin just we are two different military with two different atmosphere of conduct

**Ahtman**

djones520 wrote:
Generally what an E-3 thinks is right, is anything but. That's just my 12 years of experience speaking.

You were an E-3 for twelve years?!