Err…
I am against it period.
If Manning is what brought all this to light and makes me think about it then so what?
It is wrong period.
I’ll note exceptions for violent criminals who may be a danger to others.
If you are a danger to yourself (e.g. suicidal) I am not sure that requires solitary.
No, the point was your asked for a cite because you did not believe the claim it was common practice. One of your own cites made it highly obvious it was common practice.
Let’s finally get back to where we started this thread.
Should Obama be impeached for this?
I say no. Has Obama had any specific interactions with the commander of the brig? Has Obama had influence on how that commander makes her (I believe it is a she) decisions as to how prisoners are housed?
Sans that, has the commander done things that are out of line with mainstream methods for housing prisoners in the United States?
If so, has the President ignored the brig commander doing things that are out of line with accepted prison practice?
To answer these questions: I doubt Obama has had any specific and direct interactions with the brig commander. Her actions obviously are in sync with things done in all fifty states and the Federal Prison system, meaning her actions are in line with mainstream penal methods and thus we cannot hold that she is behaving in a criminal manner. Since the brig commander is not doing anything illegal, you can’t argue that Obama is committing any crime.
Of course, when it gets back to impeachment, it’s all political anyway, and Obama could be impeached for wearing green socks. But should he? No, he shouldn’t. Presidents should only be impeached for genuinely abusing the power of their office and committing high crimes. They shouldn’t be impeached for “not directly intervening to stop an officer many rungs below him on a vast organizational chart from taking actions that totally comply with accepted penal practices in the United States.”
Perhaps yoo are not familiar with the oath of enlistment for United States Armed Forces:
“I, XXXXXXXXXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
Apart from the clearance violation you seem to agree on, BY DEFINITION he committed an ethically despicable act in what he did. Assuming of course he actually did do it. 
He is accused. NOT CONVICTED!
Get your head around that.
Once convicted he should get a sentence commensurate with the crime he is convicted of.
Solitary seems to be a shitty deal. Thought that was common knowledge. Prisons throw prisoners into solitary as punishment for transgressions. Why would you think it is peachy?
So? Did I ever suggest that the accused should be out and about? Although IIRC most people have an opportunity to post bail while awaiting trial so they can be out and about. I’ll grant though that the military is different in this regard and I am not arguing against that here.
Is there evidence that Manning is in danger from other prisoners? Cite?
Hell, I think other prisoners would see him as a hero for embarrassing The Man.
Huh?
He is in solitary. Period. That’s the point.
As to impeaching Obama that is just nutty and not seeing it.
Perhaps you are not familiar with the Nuremberg Trials which established that doing something under the cover of “I was ordered to” (which covers that oath you cited) is sufficient defense for ignoring or capitulating with various crimes.
Maybe you should start a new GD thread about the ethics of solitary confinement. You’d probably have a fighting chance with that.
Manning is lucky to be in solitary. The Army wants him to go to trial. Otherwise he would be dead and it would not be because of any sinister government plot. It would be at the hands of criminal prisoners who apparently have a better understanding of ethics than some posters here.
[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
He is accused. NOT CONVICTED!
[/QUOTE]
Um…I’m seriously not having any trouble with the concept.
Er…ok. Perhaps you should lay that keyboard down and back slowly away?
Yes…and water? It’s wet, right? Sky? Blue? Er, the sun thingy? Rises in the East?
I didn’t say one way or the other whether solitary was ‘peachy’. I merely pointed out that it’s not unusual in our system and asked you if you thought he’d be better off in general population. The reality is that he’s not going to be allowed to go free until the trial. Surly you don’t think that this is unusual either??
Um…you just asked if I grasped the concept and then quoted me as saying…
Never mind.
I have no idea…I presume there is some reason (other than the vague assertions he’s being punished) to keep the man in solitary. I ASKED you if you thought he’d be better off in general population and pointed out that non-violent prisoners are often held in solitary confinement because putting them in the general population might be hazardous to their health.
These would be military prisoners I assume…so, I doubt they would think he was a hero. Some of them might have a serious chip on their shoulder about him. Or, maybe not, and maybe he’s being kept in solitary because of a psyche eval that says the head shrinkers THINK he’s a danger to himself. I don’t know the specifics. You don’t seem to either, as you are tossing a lot of stuff out here based on assumptions you are making.
In the end, I still don’t see how this is going to get Obama impeached.
No…the point is WHY is he in solitary. I have no idea except for the statements that he might be a suicide risk and it’s a high profile case. YOU don’t seem to know why either, though ‘why’ is a key point to whatever your argument is, I’d think.
Me either, but it IS what this thread is about after all. I don’t see how it’s Obama’s fault, and don’t see the political reality of getting Obama impeached for this, of all things.
-XT
The stuff you cited noted that those who are separated in isolation are done so to protect them or other prisoners from them.
You have made no finding that a non-violent person accused of a crime and not in danger from others is treated in this manner or that Manning meets that criteria.
That’s silly. How is violating that oath “by definition” an “ethically despicable act”? There are far more unethical things than breaking your word. If a hypothetical President Adolf Hitler orders the Jews to be rounded up and killed, who are the more ethical soldiers? The ones who obey those orders, or the ones who disobey them?
[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
You have made no finding that a non-violent person accused of a crime and not in danger from others is treated in this manner or that Manning meets that criteria.
[/QUOTE]
But you are making an assumption here that he’s not in danger from others, or that this is the reason he’s in solitary. Do you have any evidence that he’s not in danger, or that this is why he’s being kept in solitary??
-XT
Well, when the UN wants to investigate torture allegations you’d think a simple response would be, “We are keeping him in isolation for his own good…other prisoners will kill him if we don’t.”
Now, you can laugh at the UN all you want but public perception counts and it takes the government about 5 seconds to say that.
Has the government made a case that Manning’s treatment is really for his own benefit?
I have made a case that this treatment is not a good or fair thing for Manning at this point. It would seem to me it is incumbent on others to show that his isolation, shitty as it is, really is for his benefit. No one is making that case and till you (or someone) can then you got nothing and are engaging in smoke and mirrors.
Oh that is rich.
You suggest Manning getting murdered is the ethical thing here?
Are we living in Bizzaro World?
You apparently do not understand the concepts of either legal orders or ethics. Since you are predisposed to believe these concepts are silly I will not waste time with your edification.
Translation:
“I got nothing.”
For you, that is. 
Exactly. It’s the old “I don’t have a good answer, so I’ll just act like you aren’t worthy of an answer and hope no one notices I’m not answering the question” routine.
[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
Well, when the UN wants to investigate torture allegations you’d think a simple response would be, “We are keeping him in isolation for his own good…other prisoners will kill him if we don’t.”
[/QUOTE]
What was their actual response? Assuming the UN is actually investigating this seriously, did they have any response to the allegations? What was it?
As a matter of fact, I do find it ridiculous, to be honest. If in fact the UN is indeed seriously investigating this (which I highly doubt) then it will be even more ridiculous, considering current events in the world. Even if they are beating Manning daily and pulling his toe-nails out and making him watch 24 hours of Fox News I’d think it ridiculous. If there is serious wrong doing going on, then we will investigate it ourselves, and I have few doubts that the folks responsible will be punished if there is wrong doing happening. Unless you believe, like the OP, that Obama et al will allow such a potential political cluster fuck to go unanswered and unchallenged.
No idea man…have they?
Um, no. I don’t think so. I’m not saying that isolation is or isn’t shitty. I’m saying that it’s not that unusual in the US. It’s incumbent on you to prove that he’s being treated disproportionately to people in similar situations.
I agree…the only thing is who is holding the mirrors and blowing the smoke. THAT would probably be something we disagree on here. To me, there are clearly whole tangential debates in all of this. Is solitary confinement right? Is it necessary? Is it ‘torture’? Should it continue? What is the reason Manning is being kept in solitary confinement and is it justified? Should people who haven’t been convicted of a crime be kept in solitary confinement? Should they be held at all, and if so under what conditions? Should people who release classified, sensitive, secret or top secret information to the general public be prosecuted? What extenuating circumstances would give them a pass if they released it? Under what conditions would releasing it be acceptable? Unacceptable? Should a free society HAVE information that is kept secret from the government? Who should decide what data should be kept from the government?
All possibly interesting debates…none of which have much if anything to do with whether or not Obama should or shouldn’t be impeached, near as I can tell. Which is what THIS debate is about. So…to me, it’s all smoke and mirrors.
-XT
Attempts to needle it out of me won’t work either. You might consider looking up a few terms mentioned. You know - research? That’s always been a more satisfying way to gain knowledge, in my experience. 
Yes, they describe very stressful and probably humiliating conditions of detention. However, the first thing that I noticed in the OP was “no sleep”. Sleep deprivation is clearly torture, and as such abhorrent. But I couldn’t find any mention of this in the first article, and the second, at the contrary, mentioned that he was spending a lot of time sleeping. So, harsh conditions of detention, yes. Torture no.
If you want to impeach Obama for some kind of human rights violation, I remind you that there still are detainees in Guantanamo. And they’ve been there for much longer than Manning.