Obama should be impeached

[XT]

[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
Naked for seven hours?
[/QUOTE]

While he sleeps? Well…yeah. I don’t see any large problems with that. He’s on suicide watch.

No sheets? No pillow?

According to gonzo’s cite:

Lieutenant Villiard, who says Private Manning is permitted to have two blankets at night, says detainees are awakened each morning and immediately come out of their cells. Private Manning cannot be given his underwear back before then, he said, because that would require waking him up ahead of time.

So…he has two blankets at night, when he’s sleeping naked.

Solitary confinement for seven months? (This is the big one…solitary can drive people insane)

And yet, many prisoners in the US get this treatment, as Martin Hyde pointed out. Perhaps you consider all treatment of prisoners in the US to be ‘torture’, but that’s going to be a controversial stance. And not just in the evil US…other countries have solitary confinement too.

Look, as mentioned above I am not expecting the guy to get a cabana by a poll and hot oil rubdowns by naked women. How about the usual jail for people awaiting trial?

Usual for what? Can you demonstrate that, for the crime he is accused of, that other prisoners get a different treatment in the military? Because I’ll tell you, having being in the brig myself a couple of times for disorderly conduct, it’s no pic-a-nic for the average bear either. I don’t see anything that unusual about any of this, to be honest. I certainly don’t see the ‘torture’ here.

Which one is the patsy we can’t trust?

He confirmed that this stuff was happening (again…I’m militantly unsurprised). He didn’t confirm the supposed ‘long-term psychological injuries’…that’s an assumption based on the supposed harsh treatment.

Then debunk my cites.

Why should I? They prove nothing. When you present a cite that could actually be countered and has some sort of substance then I’ll see what I can do. A cite saying that the UN is supposedly investigating a claim of ‘torture’ from a Manning supporter basically cuts no ice at this point, since ‘the UN is investigating’ could mean they are actually investigating something, and might some day come to some sort of conclusion…or might mean that the UN is doing nothing more than paying lip service. If and when they ACTUALLY come up with something, then we’ll see what it is and where we can go from there. Personally, I’m not holding my breath for the UN to come out with the claim that Manning is being ‘tortured’, but you never know…the UN has made noises about our general prison conditions in the past IIRC, so they might. Of course, a body who would have Kaddaffi on it’s Human Rights Counsel…well…

have little doubt he’ll be thrown under the bus and repeatedly run over. The guy is screwed. The powers that be will see to it he is assfucked from now till forever to make anyone else who might want to point out government corruption to think twice and then a third time.

I have no doubt he’ll be found guilty, if indeed he passed on that information. If he did, you are right…he’s totally screwed. We probably differ on whether that’s fair or right, of course, but are in agreement of what’s likely to happen to him, assuming he is indeed found guilty. Of course, if his supporters are able to make enough of a stink about his being ‘tortured’ (hell, if he actually HAS been or IS being tortured in reality) then that might change the equation, and he might be found guilty and let off with a slap on the wrist for political reasons. You never know.

-XT

[Martin_Hyde]

@Whack-a-Mole

I’ll use an example:

The government is infecting poor, rural black men (US citizens) with syphilis to test its progression.

You work for the government and are bound by security clearances not so speak of it.

Are you a traitor if you blow the whistle on this?

(I hope you realize this example is not a hypothetical)

How would you be a traitor? I didn’t call Manning a traitor.

Treason has a very specific definition in the Constitution and a super high bar to conviction. I believe there have been fewer than 50 treason cases in the history of the United States.

However, regardless of reason if you violate a security clearance you know you are facing prison time. It isn’t the same as violating a fiduciary or agent level of trust in the corporate world.

Also, Peter Buxtun worked for the U.S. Public Health Service. While I don’t doubt they have to sign various non-disclosure and HIPAA agreements, I do not accept without citation that the man had a security clearance. That’s a very different thing.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Martin_Hyde

How would you be a traitor? I didn’t call Manning a traitor.

Treason has a very specific definition in the Constitution and a super high bar to conviction. I believe there have been fewer than 50 treason cases in the history of the United States.

However, regardless of reason if you violate a security clearance you know you are facing prison time. It isn’t the same as violating a fiduciary or agent level of trust in the corporate world.

Also, Peter Buxtun worked for the U.S. Public Health Service. While I don’t doubt they have to sign various non-disclosure and HIPAA agreements, I do not accept without citation that the man had a security clearance. That’s a very different thing.

Fine.

You made a distinction about violating government security clearances.

Would you condemn someone with a security clearance who wasn’t supposed to talk because of it for blowing the whistle on the government infecting US citizens with a nasty disease so they can see what happens?

[Nadir]

Funny how some some people seem so secure in their own little world with absolutely no concept of “security” in terms of how it is achieved at various levels of society.

[Martin_Hyde]

Also, there’s a very simple reason that exposing the Tuskeegee Experiment is very different than a person with a security clearance violating that security clearance is markedly different.

Specifically when we are talking about people in the military or intelligence services. There is a civilian chain of command. There are civilian entities that get to review anything the military or the intelligence services do. There are even standing committees with select members of Congress who get brought in and informed of some of the more sketchy stuff we do.

Meaning, it is the job of those people to decide what gets released when it comes to information that is classified. This isn’t Enron type secrets, these rules are in effect for reasons like keeping the Manhattan Project a secret from the Nazis and making it look like Operation Overlord was going to be targeted at a different spot on the coast.

These are secrets that low level members of the military are not entitled to release, no matter their moral convictions. Precisely because moral convictions are not absolute. What if a serviceman got word to the Nazis that we were landing at Normandy, because of his strong conviction that the Nazis were morally correct in their behavior? I don’t care about Godwin and other internet bullshit, this is the real situations these laws and procedures were created to handle. Low level worker bees in the U.S. military cannot be granted personal autonomy to make decisions that our constitution and their oath leave up to the highest ranks of the elected leadership to disclose or not disclose. Manning’s actions can be said to undermine the very concept of military being in service of the civilian leadership.

[Martin_Hyde]

@Whack-a-Mole

Fine.

You made a distinction about violating government security clearances.

Would you condemn someone with a security clearance who wasn’t supposed to talk because of it for blowing the whistle on the government infecting US citizens with a nasty disease so they can see what happens?

I don’t remember condemning Manning, I’m just explaining why he isn’t a whistle blower. Whistle blowers actions tend to be legally protected. Manning’s action is the opposite, his actions were legally prohibited.

I don’t think Manning was nefarious, just absolutely stupid.

The final reason he isn’t much of a whistle blower is aside from a disputed incident with a helicopter his big data dump hasn’t done anything positive in the world or done much to raise public awareness of anything, it hasn’t revealed anything that has materially changed policy. Someone blowing the whistle on Enron a few years out could have had real impact.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Martin_Hyde

But finally, the point I’m making is nothing about Manning’s treatment is exceptional.

@xtisme

And yet, many prisoners in the US get this treatment, as Martin Hyde pointed out.

Cite?

Cite for this being usual for an accused citizen. One who apparently has shown no inclination to suicide. One who is non-violent and not a threat to others.

Cite that many prisoners get this treatment. Some do yes. The worst of the worst. Convicted ones at that.

The ones I am aware of that receive this treatment are in Supermax:

Supermax is the place America sends the prisoners it wants to punish the most - a place former warden Robert Hood described as a clean version of hell.

“I don’t know what hell is, but I do know the assumption would be, for a free person, it’s pretty close to it,” Hood tells Pelley.

<snip>

“In our system, there’s 114 prisons. And there’s only one Supermax. It’s like the Harvard of the system,” Hood explains.

SOURCE: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/11/60minutes/main3357727.shtml?source=RSSattr=60Minutes_3357727

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Martin_Hyde

I don’t remember condemning Manning, I’m just explaining why he isn’t a whistle blower. Whistle blowers actions tend to be legally protected. Manning’s action is the opposite, his actions were legally prohibited.

You keep dodging the question.
You said:

When you get to a point either in the Federal Government, the military, or even just as a contractor working for said entities in pretty much any field if you get a security clearance that comes with responsibilities.

An accountant that reveals corporate fraud is breaking their duty to keep their client’s information private, but is doing so for the greater good. That can be admirable.

A manager that reveals corporate fraud is breaking their duty to their shareholders. But doing so is for the greater good, that can be admirable.

A person with a security clearance has given up some of the liberties of action that you or I possess. Their is not a “whistle blower” exception when it comes to security clearances and improper release of classified information. Classified information is classified, period. Releasing it is a crime and this is established in statute, you can and will be punished for it.

I do not disagree that it is against the law to blow the whistle when you are under a security clearance.

That would make Manning guilty in the literal, letter-of-the-law sense.

I posited a situation where someone witnessed the government infecting US citizens and blew the whistle on it.

They would be breaking the law as written too.

However, that does not mean the guy did something morally or ethically wrong. Indeed I would say he did the morally and ethically correct thing by blowing the whistle.

[XT]

Well, here is a case in Alaska of a teen spending 17 months in solitary confinement, pre-trial. A quick Google search turns up other cases. I see a bunch of cases involving pedophiles who are confined to solitary, pre-trial in the US. It also tells me that in Canada, they call it the Special Handling Unit. Here is a Wiki on solitary, though it doesn’t go into trial vs pre-trial uses of solitary.

Does that satisfy, or do you want some of those other cases?

-XT

[Whack-a-Mole]

@xtisme

Well, here is a case in Alaska of a teen spending 17 months in solitary confinement, pre-trial. A quick Google search turns up other cases. I see a bunch of cases involving pedophiles who are confined to solitary, pre-trial in the US. It also tells me that in Canada, they call it the Special Handling Unit. Here is a Wiki on solitary, though it doesn’t go into trial vs pre-trial uses of solitary.

Does that satisfy, or do you want some of those other cases?

-XT

One case of a person accused of a violent crime.

Also, the case you cited the youth was isolated from the adult population…presumably for his safety.

The article is basically pointing out the obvious problems with this and seems argues for reform. The issue is with young people being tried as adults and being held in the adult system.

Hardly the same thing as this case.

You gave no cite for the many pedos in isolation but I am willing to bet that this is again for their own protection since prisoners apparently really hate pedos.

None of this is relevant to Manning.

Try again.

[XT]

[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
I do not disagree that it is against the law to blow the whistle when you are under a security clearance.
[/QUOTE]

He didn’t blow the whistle though…he released classified and secret materials that he wasn’t authorized to release. He violated his security clearance. There could be extenuating circumstances for releasing such data, of course…and that will be up to the court to decide. Frankly, I’d say that if he’s proven to have indeed released that data he’s fucked, as there won’t be any noble extenuating circumstances to get him out of what he did. I could be wrong, though, since I’m not a lawyer, and even if I were, that’s what trials are for…to determine guilt.

I posited a situation where someone witnessed the government infecting US citizens and blew the whistle on it.

And in that case, perhaps extenuating circumstance would come into play and the guy would get off.

They would be breaking the law as written too.

They would indeed, assuming the information was under a secret or top secret classification. The people (many civilians) who authorized that classification would be even more in trouble today, however, so the guy would probably get off with no problems. Sadly, in Manning’s case, this isn’t going to happen because the data he released doesn’t show anything illegal. Some of it was politically embarrassing to many in the government, but none of it, afaik, was illegal.

-XT

[Martin_Hyde]

I love when I get to turn someone’s own cites against them. I present this as evidence Whack-a-Mole, who earlier referenced this very article, didn’t actually read it.

In 2006, a bipartisan National Commission on America’s Prisons was created and it called for the elimination of prolonged solitary confinement. Its Report documented that conditions whereby “prisoners end up locked in their cells 23 hours a day, every day. . . is so severe that people end up completely isolated, living in what can only be described as torturous conditions.”

This was from an earlier cite, that you yourself provided. (cite)

Let’s put our “Little Tyke Thinking Caps” on. If an entity called the “National Commission on America’s Prisons” called for the elimination of prolonged solitary confinement in which prisoners end up locked in their cells 23 hours a day, every day, then what can we conclude? Well, I’ll fill in the blank for you. We can conclude they were saying this happens right now and it shouldn’t. My point being, this is direct evidence this is something that goes on. Further, I think it heavily implies this is a systemic thing and not just something that happens in a Supermax Federal prison.

Additionally, I made it very clear in an earlier post that I don’t consider his treatment to be unusual but I explicitly said I wasn’t saying this happened to “most” prisoners, only that it happens often enough to be routine. I even specifically used numbers like “hundreds or perhaps a few thousand” when speculating about the number of people held in this manner.

Anyway, let’s actually go to that report referenced above. The one quoted in your cite that you failed to read (or failed to comprehend) and obviously a link you didn’t follow when reading through your cite. Perhaps because you aren’t reading these cites for comprehension but just for the sole purpose of making points in this thread? For someone who is so interested in this, I would personally advise being more educated about it and actually rigorously looking into the articles you are reading.

The report goes on to say this (it’s a report created by a government entity, so I do not feel I am in violation of any rules by reposting large chunks of text from the report):

Finding: The increasing use of high-security segregation is counter-productive, often causing violence inside facilities and contributing to recidivism after release.

Separating dangerous or vulnerable individuals from the general prison
population is part of running a safe correctional facility. In some systems
around the country, however, the drive for safety, coupled with public
demand for tough punishment, has had perverse effects: Prisoners who
should be housed at safe distances from particular individuals or groups of
prisoners end up locked in their cells 23 hours a day, every day, with little
opportunity to be productive and prepare for release. People who pose no
real threat to anyone and also those who are mentally ill are languishing
for months or years in high-security units and “supermax” prisons. In some
places, the environment is so severe that people end up completely isolated, confined in constantly bright or constantly dim spaces without any
meaningful human contact—torturous conditions that are proven to cause
mental deterioration. Prisoners often are released directly from solitary
confinement and other high-security units directly to the streets, despite
the clear dangers of doing so.

Between 1995 and 2000, the growth rate in the number of people
housed in segregation far outpaced the growth rate of the prison population overall: 40 percent compared to 28 percent. As lawyer, scholar, and
prison monitor Fred Cohen told the Commission, segregation is now
a “regular part of the rhythm of prison life.” There is troubling evidence
that the distress of living and working in this environment actually causes
violence between staff and prisoners.

From the same report:

A federal judge described numerous prisoners being stripped to their
underwear and strapped to a mattress at the wrists, ankles, and across
the chest for roughly 48 hours with only brief interruptions of mobility

From the same report:

Psychologist and University of California Professor
Craig Haney, who has interviewed hundreds of prisoners in segregation,
has said that they are “utterly dysfunctional when they get out” and that
family members often ask him to help their relatives adjust to normal life
( Johnson 2005). Texas has since begun a pilot program to smooth the
transition from long-term segregation to the community and is closely
tracking the results

From the same report:

For example, a young prisoner caught with 17 packs of Newport cigarettes—contraband in the nonsmoking jail—was given 15 days in solitary confinement for each pack of
cigarettes, more than eight months altogether

Note, that incident happened in jail.

You should read this report, it makes it clear that this level of solitary isn’t just common, it’s increasing and is found all over the county. Yes, even in jails and not just prisons (jails house pretrial prisoners and prisoners serving short sentences.)

Here’s an except from a blog post about a juvenile inmate in Texas:

For the past six months, George has been living alone in a small cell on the second floor of the Harris County jail awaiting trial on charges of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. Prosecutors say he was one of a group of boys who robbed and assaulted a married couple at gunpoint.

George (not his real name) has been held in isolation 23 hours a day even though he has not been convicted of a crime.

He is 15 years old.

He desperately misses his mom.

cite

Reading through this stuff what really shocks me is the lack of outrage over this stuff. That a piece of shit primadonna like Bradley Manning is the only reason people care about things like this.

[Der_Trihs]

@Martin_Hyde

Also, there’s a very simple reason that exposing the Tuskeegee Experiment is very different than a person with a security clearance violating that security clearance is markedly different.

Specifically when we are talking about people in the military or intelligence services. There is a civilian chain of command. There are civilian entities that get to review anything the military or the intelligence services do. There are even standing committees with select members of Congress who get brought in and informed of some of the more sketchy stuff we do.

Meaning, it is the job of those people to decide what gets released when it comes to information that is classified. This isn’t Enron type secrets, these rules are in effect for reasons like keeping the Manhattan Project a secret from the Nazis and making it look like Operation Overlord was going to be targeted at a different spot on the coast.

These are secrets that low level members of the military are not entitled to release, no matter their moral convictions.

So; your position is that if it’s the military infecting people with diseases to see what happens, the lower ranked types should just stay quiet and go along with it? Since when is “I was just following orders” a valid excise for cooperating with the commission of atrocities?

@Martin_Hyde

I don’t care about Godwin and other internet bullshit, this is the real situations these laws and procedures were created to handle.

Godwin? You are the one advocating that our soldiers act like concentration camp guards, “just following orders” and commit atrocities. Atrocities are also the sort of “real situation” that the law and morality needs to deal with.

@Martin_Hyde

Low level worker bees in the U.S. military cannot be granted personal autonomy to make decisions that our constitution and their oath leave up to the highest ranks of the elected leadership to disclose or not disclose. Manning’s actions can be said to undermine the very concept of military being in service of the civilian leadership.

More nonsense. The low level “worker bees” having some minimal moral judgment of their own is a vital component in preventing atrocities and military coups and tyranny. The soldiers who “just follow orders” are the ones who will round up people into concentration camps or open up on protesters with machine guns or shoot the President when their General tells them too. It is a good thing for the government and high military command to have to worry that there are orders their soldiers won’t follow, secrets that they won’t keep. Look at Libya; was it wrong for those pilots to ditch their planes rather than follow their orders and bomb protesters?

[XT]

[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
One case of a person accused of a violent crime.
[/QUOTE]

So what? You asked for an example of someone in a pre-trial situation who was put in solitary and I provided one.

Also, the case you cited the youth was isolated from the adult population…presumably for his safety.

Again…so what? Presumably Manning is being kept naked for his protection, and is being kept out of the general population for the same reasons.

The article is basically pointing out the obvious problems with this and seems argues for reform. The issue is with young people being tired as adults and being held in the adult system.

Yes it is…and there are many who disagree with the entire concept of solitary confinement. Again, so what? You asked for an example of someone being put in solitary on a pre-trial basis…I provided an example.

None of this is relevant to Manning.

None of it is, since his case is different. If you want to demonstrate that he’s being treated in a manner markedly different (and unique) then it’s up to YOU to demonstrate that. Feel free to do so.

Try again.

Um, no…I think not. I’m not going to play, er, Whack-a-Mole with the cites thingy. If you want to demonstrate that he’s being treated in a manner that is uniquely harsh then do so. Otherwise I’d suggest we move on to whether or not Obama should be impeached for, um, something. To do with Manning. Or, um, something.

-XT

[Whack-a-Mole]

@xtisme

They would indeed, assuming the information was under a secret or top secret classification. The people (many civilians) who authorized that classification would be even more in trouble today, however, so the guy would probably get off with no problems. Sadly, in Manning’s case, this isn’t going to happen because the data he released doesn’t show anything illegal. Some of it was politically embarrassing to many in the government, but none of it, afaik, was illegal.

And herein lies the issue.

I have no doubt he’ll go to jail. IMO he deserves jail time.

But he does not deserve the hell he is going through.

He is currently accused, not convicted.

He is not accused of a violent crime.

He is not a danger to himself or others.

No one has been harmed because of his actions beyond embarrassing some powerful people.

Manning should get the same treatment as someone who found nude pictures of his CO and his mistress and uploaded them to the internet. The penalties will of course be different but awaiting a hearing should not be substantially different treatment.

[Marley23]

@xenophon41

What the OP advocates is fucking retarded.

Since we’re in Great Debates and not the Pit, please reduce the vitriol.

[gonzomax]

Bradley Manning has not gone to trial. Don’t you have more sense than to declare him guilty. You think you know what happened. I will wait for the trial.
If Manning did it, he let out some very interesting information the American citizens deserve to have. We are not supposed to have a lot of secrets in America. They classify way too much.
He did us a service.

[Martin_Hyde]

@Whack-a-Mole

And herein lies the issue.

I have no doubt he’ll go to jail. IMO he deserves jail time.

But he does not deserve the hell he is going through.

He is currently accused, not convicted.

He is not accused of a violent crime.

He is not a danger to himself or others.

No one has been harmed because of his actions beyond embarrassing some powerful people.

Manning should get the same treatment as someone who found nude pictures of his CO and his mistress and uploaded them to the internet. The penalties will of course be different but awaiting a hearing should not be substantially different treatment.

Here’s the thing though, you keep dancing all over the place.

People point out “what he’s going through is something lots of people go through every day in prison.” So in response you pound home that he’s being held in pre-trial confinement. We provide evidence this kind of thing routinely happens in pre-trial confinement, so you say “well that’s not relevant to Bradley Manning.”

Actually it is. It’s the very history of this kind of behavior in the penal system that is very, very relevant to Bradley Manning on a personal level at the moment. We routinely lock people in cages while they are in pre-trial confinement (literally, one Louisiana Parish recently got bad press when it was found out inmates in pre-trial detention who are on the suicide watch get put in cages that literally are smaller than the legal specification for a dog cage in Louisiana.)

Is it your argument that no one deserves to be treated like Bradley Manning or is it your argument that Bradley Manning specifically doesn’t deserve this treatment.

Like I said before, if it’s just your general position that this kind of treatment is torture and inhumane, then that’s great. I won’t argue that point. But what I’m still trying to get at is why exactly you only care that Manning is being held in these conditions. You keep talking about it like something exceptional is being done to him. If it’s so bad, why do we do it all the time?

Basically if you’d quit acting like Manning is being treated to singular injustice, I’d have much less issue with anything you’re saying.

But it takes me back to wondering why people are acting as though his treatment is a one of a kind thing.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Martin_Hyde

I love when I get to turn someone’s own cites against them. I present this as evidence Whack-a-Mole, who earlier referenced this very article, didn’t actually read it.

Huh?

Can I get a Board Ruling on this? Has my own cite really been turned against me?

I am arguing that this is something that is going on that shouldn’t and Martin Hyde is claiming that this is something that is going on and shouldn’t?

Color me confused.

[XT]

[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
But he does not deserve the hell he is going through.
[/QUOTE]

Deserve is a tricky word. It’s hard to judge what he deserves, to be honest. Also, ‘hell he is going through’ is going to be hard to define. I don’t think he’s going through ‘hell’…YMMV obviously. I will ask, how do you think his life would be in the general population right now? Do you expect things would be better for him? How do you expect he’d be treated by the other inmates?

He is currently accused, not convicted.

That’s true…he hasn’t been convicted. However, there is obviously enough evidence to hold him until his trial. Otherwise he’d be out and about.

He is not accused of a violent crime.

Nope…he’s not a violent criminal. But pedophiles aren’t violent either, yet they are generally put in solitary confinement. Pretty much because if they weren’t, they would be in serious danger from the other prisoners. My understanding is that police and other judiciary officials convicted of serious crimes are often put in solitary as well…again, for their own protection.

I haven’t seen any evidence that Manning has been put in solitary as a punishment. If you have such evidence it might help your case…though I don’t see how it will help impeach Obama, to be honest.

Manning should get the same treatment as someone who found nude pictures of his CO and his mistress and uploaded them to the internet. The penalties will of course be different but awaiting a hearing should not be substantially different treatment.

Except this is totally a strawman argument. He didn’t release pictures of his CO with a mistress or with a nun while riding a donkey and a midget in the background…nor the equivalent. He released sensitive classified information.

As for not hurting anyone…maybe yes, maybe no. It’s hard to judge whether anyone has been hurt. Documents that were classified have been released in the past (say, documents concerning nuclear weapons research to the Soviets, or information about the Navy to the Soviets, for example), yet no one was specifically ‘hurt’…we didn’t, after all, go to war with Russia, so no one was ever harmed directly. It’s probable that some Afghani’s might have been harmed, and perhaps even some soldiers…it’s just difficult to tell or quantify.

-XT