Obama should be impeached

[Whack-a-Mole]

@xtisme

What was their actual response? Assuming the UN is actually investigating this seriously, did they have any response to the allegations? What was it?

I dunno. I’d think in the things I’ve read that would have been noted if the government made that claim. I haven’t seen it.

If you want to debunk me do the legwork yourself.

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.

Yeah, it’s the toothless UN so not much they can do. However, it does indicate others are thinking this is bullshit too. They can’t do shit about it but I am not alone in my concern for this.

As for investigating it ourselves are you kidding me? Did we investigate and bust people for waterboarding? Something the US considered torture in the past and prosecuted people for? There is precious little accountability left in the government.

No idea man…have they?

Again, do your own work if you want to debunk what I am saying.

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.

It is a whole other thread to debate my position on our prison system.

Suffice it to say you showed it is common for protection and/or for violent criminals. Neither of which you have proven here as regards Manning.

As an aside the “protection” thing I don’t get. To protect someone the government tortures them? Doesn’t make a lot of sense. If a guy is going to inform on the Mob do they put that guy into miserable isolation? Seems you won’t get a lot of informers if you do that. Exploring that question is, again, probably a whole new thread.

[clairobscur]

@Nadir

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.

Not by definition. Breaking an oath isn’t by definition morally despicable. There might be tons of highly ethical reasons to do so.

[Bryan_Ekers]

It’s not entirely implausible to me that:

1. Manning may have reviewed the material in part before passing it on.
2. The Army can hold out the hope that Manning didn’t pass along everything to wikileaks, and/or that wikileaks might be persuaded (or compelled) to destroy or return any as-yet-unpublished info.
3. Therefore Manning might know some classified material that has not (yet) been shared.
4. Allowing Manning to mingle with other prisoners raises the possibility that he’ll reveal classified information to them
5. Thus, in the interest of national security, isolate Manning to the maximum extent possible until relevant investigations and court procedures are complete.
   If there’s a flaw in this reasoning, I invite anyone to point it out.

[The_Second_Stone]

@Whack-a-Mole

Others noted some problems with this.

I will add that as a US citizen he is entitled to a presumption of innocence till found guilty and a few other rights besides which includes not being fucking tortured.

You do realize if you are fine with that happening to him then you are fine with it happening to you or your brother or sister or wife or mother. As long as the government claims they are a traitor then the government can do what they want to them.

Really no different than living under Saddam Hussein was. I thought we were better than that.

Apparently we aren’t. If someone has to be in prison, put him in prison. If someone is to be executed, then execute him. What needs to be done needs to be done with due process of law. What’s going on with Manning in keeping him awake, isolated and naked is causing pain for the sociopathic sense of satisfaction it brings these fuckers? This is us doing it. If we are willing to do this to a service member, we will certainly do it to our neighbors. This is cruelty for the sake of cruelty. No different than Ted Bundy.

@Nadir

What do you “claim” he is, if not a traitor?

He is accused. Now I see that many people don’t give a shit about the presumption of innocence. For the purposes of my opinion, and please refer to the OP and my previous posts, it doesn’t matter whether he is innocent, release embarrassing cables or sold the a bomb secrets to the Soviets: when did we start treating people, criminals or neighbors like this? We know better, but we are doing it. We’ve been doing it for a while, and it isn’t some jailor losing his/her temper. Manning and Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo are our policy. It’s what we do. It’s who we are. And most of us here are fine with that, just read the thread. Manning isn’t the only one, we’ve been doing it for over a decade and we grant the people doing it every benefit of the doubt. Just read the excuse making in this thread. Maybe he is suicidal? Really? For people who insist on evidence, there is none. What evidence is there that standing at attention naked for 7 hours is a suicidal prevention method? It ain’t any suicide prevention method that I have ever heard of. It’s bullshit. They are keeping him awake and making him stand at attention naked because they can and it gives them evil pleasure and to show us all that they can.

[Nadir]

@clairobscur

Not by definition. Breaking an oath isn’t by definition morally despicable. There might be tons of highly ethical reasons to do so.

I said ethically, not morally.

Aside from the tons of reasons that are not in question here specifically, would you argue that breaching security in this manner in this particular case is or is not unethical?

[Nadir]

@The_Second_Stone

when did we start treating people, criminals or neighbors like this? We know better, but we are doing it.

You are making moral value judgments that are simply not applicable in this matter. Write a letter your Congressman and try to get the laws changed if this seems so reprehensible to you.

Furthermore, to make the great leap to impeachment based on such nonsense is the epitome of foolishness.

[Der_Trihs]

@Nadir

Attempts to needle it out of me won’t work either.

Of course not, since you are in the wrong. I can’t “needle out of you” something that doesn’t exist.

[Nadir]

@Bryan_Ekers

3. Therefore Manning might know some classified material that has not (yet) been shared.

If there’s a flaw in this reasoning, I invite anyone to point it out.

This is IMO the most correct theory justifying the Pfc’s general state of incarceration.

State of casual sleeping attire? meh.

[Nadir]

@Der_Trihs

Of course not, since you are in the wrong. I can’t “needle out of you” something that doesn’t exist.

Wrong about the ethical basis for following lawful orders, or wrong about not explaining it to you?

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Nadir

State of casual sleeping attire? meh.

Typical of your stance.

Ignore the inconvenient bits.

He is in solitary confinement. That has distinctly deleterious effects on a person.

Coleen Rowley, a former special agent/legal counsel at the FBI’s Minneapolis division, told MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann Wednesday that it appears Manning was receiving the same type of harsh treatment reserved for terrorism detainees.

“I’ve never heard of punishing someone pre-conviction like this in solitary confinement,” she said. “It really sounds vindictive and in a way, it seems like some of the harsh interrogation tactics have kind of bled over now into the criminal process, which is just shocking.”

Accounts of prisoners held for years in solitary confinement say similar things. Prisoners often experience panic attacks, compulsive behaviors, visual and auditory halucinations, severe depression and uncontrollable emotions, among other adverse effects.

SOURCE: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/16/supporters-bradley-manning-detention-torture/

[Nadir]

@Whack-a-Mole

He is in solitary confinement. That has distinctly deleterious effects on a person.

I believe the deleterious effects of possible further leaks and brutalization at the hands of his cell mates outweigh the risk of potential deleterious effects to his delicate psyche.

I mean, we don’t really know what might happen in the future under any possible circumstances, do we? That’s why people in responsible positions of authority are charged with making these kinds of decisions. Just like Martin explained to you how our civilian leaders at the highest levels of government are charged with making decisions to classify information - which the Pfc chose to ignore at his peril, in direct violation of his sworn oath not to do so, followed by personal signatory affirmation in his clearance paperwork.

This is so damn cut and dried I cannot believe people actually express these kinds of doubts about it. Truly amazing.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Nadir

This is IMO the most correct theory justifying the Pfc’s general state of incarceration.

I can’t be sure that it’s the correct theory, of course, I just figure it’s a plausible one.

And if I was in charge of Manning’s detention, I’d keep him isolated for that reason.

[Der_Trihs]

@Nadir

Wrong about the ethical basis for following lawful orders, or wrong about not explaining it to you?

Wrong in your silly idea that by violating an oath “BY DEFINITION he committed an ethically despicable act”. To repeat my reply, and the question you avoided answering:

@Der_Trihs

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?

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Nadir

I believe the deleterious effects of possible further leaks and brutalization at the hands of his cell mates outweigh the risk of potential deleterious effects to his delicate psyche.

This is so damn cut and dried I cannot believe people actually express these kinds of doubts about it. Truly amazing.

It is not “cut-and-dried”.

Drones, as you seem to want, answer “Yes sir” without thinking for themself have been the goons of empires for ages.

You hear “classified secret” information and assume he is aiding and abetting the enemy.

He already did the damage (i.e. released the documents).

Point out the damage he has done beyond embarrassing a few assholes. I want cites. Show me he did damage along the lines of Aldrich Ames or Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.

What you and others here miss, in your rush to crucify someone, is that YOUR RIGHTS are diminished.

We are torturing a US citizen. One who has not even been convicted yet.

You may deem him guilty. Maybe he is guilty as they come. But your rush to judgment and ease with which you screw that guy diminishes your rights.

I am sure you think, “I’m no fuckin’ traitor…I ain’t worried none…fuck him!”

You may not understand it but when you allow Manning’s rights to be stomped on you have stomped on your rights. I might be ok with you choosing to fuck yourself over but that attitude screws me over too.

I am not ok with that.

Manning has rights. Same as ANY United States citizen.

No one here has explained why his treatment is acceptable beyond a vague sense they think “traitors” deserve it. Even if that is true he HAS NOT BEEN CONVICTED!

Once he is (if he is but I have no doubt he will be) then he gets the applicable penalties.

It’s people like you who attended stonings in ancient times. Nevermind if all perp did was say, “'That fish was good enough for Jehovah” to his wife. He’s fucked and you’ll see to it he gets fucked but good.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Whack-a-Mole

He already did the damage (i.e. released the documents).

Whoa, that’s fascist talk, there. What happened to the presumption of innocence?

[Nadir]

@Bryan_Ekers

Whoa, that’s fascist talk, there. What happened to the presumption of innocence?

It goes right along with the presumption of torture and the theoretical assumption that no serious damage was done.

How pitifully naive you are mole. He is only in the de-briefing stage right now. The real fun starts after he gets introduced to the general poulation at Leavenworth after the trial. :eek:

[Shodan]

@Whack-a-Mole

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

Sleeping without a pillow is hell? Pardon me while I collapse in a fit of giggles.

He is not a danger to himself or others.

Then why is he on suicide watch?

Or, perhaps more succinctly -

WOLF! WOLF!

:rolleyes:

Regards,
Shodan

[Shayna]

I must be living in bizarro world. I agree with Martin Hyde. Not only that, I find he’s making cogent arguments sans all the emotional hysteria others are putting forth here.

[Martin_Hyde]

@Whack-a-Mole

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.

Still on this? Actually if you noticed the big report I talked about and quoted from multiple times, it mentions all kinds of persons being put in solitary. For example, I directly quoted a case of a guy in jail getting put in solitary for several weeks over a minor contraband offense.

If you had actually read the report that I linked to, and even said “you should read this” (it’s obvious you still refuse to do that) you would see it specifically mentions jail repeatedly during its talk about solitary confinement. Jails by their nature have pre-trial detainees and persons serving short sentences.

Given the fact I guess you’re looking for some easy, “buzzword” cite, I’m going to basically say “fuck off” if you ask for any more citations for this. I’ve given you a fucking multiple page report that proves solitary, both in jail and prisons, is not a rare thing. That it happens all the time for a huge variety of reasons, sometimes no reason at all. If you’re not going to read a cite just because it’s a big, extremely thorough report, then I am under no more obligation to continue demonstrating the point.

Resolved: Bradley Manning is not being treated in a manner materially different than many individuals in the United States penal system have been treated and are still being treated.

As a final note, while Manning is not on “suicide watch” the military has repeatedly stated that at least part of the reason for his treatment is a suicide “concern”, so he would actually meet the same categorization as many of the more direct citations about pre-trial detainees I’ve already given. Even if you don’t believe the military and think they are just making that up as an excuse to put him in solitary, do you think that means he’s being treated in a unique manner? Prisoner abuse is a huge issue in our penal system, do you really think, that even if the military is just totally lying about Bradley Manning and are solely putting him in solitary to be mean to him, that this makes him unique? Because county jails and state prisons get cited all the time for far worse cases of unprovoked prisoner abuse, rape, torture, the worst stuff you can imagine. So even if all the claims you make are true, it’s still not a uniquely individual experience for Bradley Manning.

[John_Mace]

@El_Kabong

I’m not arguing that Obama should be impeached; please take that particular point up with the OP. The articles were presented not to show that Obama should be impeached but as evidence that Manning seems to be getting unusually harsh treatment, based on another poster’s apparent disbelief that this could be the case. Seems like you were saying that one has to quote the articles in this thread for them to be legitimate cites. So, apparently you meant something else. Fair enough.

I think Martin Hyde has pretty thoroughly answered your question, but just to be clear: No, I don’t think Manning is “getting unusually harsh treatment”.