The Glade 4.0

Except, he's contending that Obama has been pressed with and succeeding at dealing with other matters since he took office. I want to know what these bigger fish happen to be and how the success is being measure. Otherwise, he's just pissing in the wind because he thinks Obama is a good president for reasons he's NEVER been able to elucidate.

_________________

So he should pet the dog again, and be bitten in the face again, because he made the mistake of saying "hey, puppy"?

Yup, otherwise he's just teasing the poor puppy, and that's just wrong.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

lol

Manning has, in fact, been charged with unauthorized release of classified information. He was charged back on July 5th, 2010 and his court martial is set for spring of this year. This nonsense about "he hasn't even been charged with a crime!" could have been dispelled in the first paragraph of his wikipedia entry.

As for the details of his confinement, they're pretty much the same as those of any other inmate kept in segregation in any other prison anywhere in the country. The necessity of some of the conditions is certainly questionable, but people acting like its something they're doing specifically to Manning, or that its torture are totally full of **** unless they've already been calling for prison reform in that regard in general. Manning is not receivng any specially harsh conditions.

As for him being tortured, that's just the sort of definition creep for torture we've discussed in the past. Don't like what's happening to your newest hero? No problem; just start calling it "psychological torture". It won't be long before trials are psychological torture too.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I wouldn't call depriving someone of exercise and sleep (if true) "torture" per se, but it's definitely unacceptable. Also, you can't just charge someone with a crime and then leave them in prison indefinitely "awaiting trial". This is exactly what happened with Kevin Mitnick, for instance. He was charged and then held for four and half frakin' years before he got a trial. The also had him in solitary for 3/4 of a year for no justifiable reason. Now Mitnick was no hero, and perhaps neither is Manning, depending on your leanings, but nevertheless, what was done to him was completely inexcusable, and a number of our officials should have wound up in prison with him because of it.

It doesn't have to be "torture" to be illegal.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

Like I said, you can argue it on the merits of the treatment itself. However, people getting all outraged about it just because it's this particular guy are being disingenuous.



He isn't being left indefinitely awaiting trial. He has a military lawyer and he is scheduled to go to court martial. The entire process is less than a year, and I know of no evidence that this is unusually long for a very severe UCMJ case.

This is exactly what happened with Kevin Mitnick, for instance. He was charged and then held for four and half frakin' years before he got a trial. The also had him in solitary for 3/4 of a year for no justifiable reason. Now Mitnick was no hero, and perhaps neither is Manning, depending on your leanings, but nevertheless, what was done to him was completely inexcusable, and a number of our officials should have wound up in prison with him because of it.[/quote]

I don't know who that is or how, from the brief description you gave, he is in any way similar from Manning other than both being in jail. Manning has only been held about 6 months at this point, not 4 and a half years, and by all accounts will begin trial well before a year has elapsed.



No one said it did. However, it also is not illegal just because some people don't like it either. I don't know of anything making it illegal.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Mitnik was a(n) (in)famous hacker -- though really he was more into social engineering than "hacking", per se -- back in the day. He broke into a private security specialist's computer and stole the designs for a new cell phone by Oki. Officially, that was the crime for which he was ultimately convicted. Unofficially, his crime was making the FBI look like a bunch of incompetent fools, which with respect to computer crimes in that day, they certainly were. When they tried to wiretap him, Mitnik turned the tables and wiretapped the FBI agents that were working his case. Moral of the story: if you get egg on the face of the DoJ or its subsidiaries, they'll decide to ignore those pesky civil rights of yours. IMHO, this is exactly what's going on with Manning.

With respect to that, explain to me how 6-months of solitary confinement, and refusing him both exercise and bedding is normal or appropriate for someone who hasn't even been tried, let alone convicted of a crime? You're right that it's not illegal because people don't like it -- it's illegal because the 8th amendment says so.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

Isn't he in a military prison and under the UCMJ?

I'm pretty sure his rights are not what you think they are (or should be).

Yes he is. He's under a totally different set of rules 'cause of his own choices, and he broke those rules to pretty much the max.

That don't stop folks using him and his predicament to substantiate their foolish opinions. Pity, really. Not surprising though.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

I don't see any particularly good reason to believe this.



6 months of solitary confinement is pretty normal for people who, for one reason or another, can't be part of the general population. As for the part about refusing him bedding and exercise, I don't buy that he is being refused either. 1 hour out of 23 in the yard is perfectly normal for solitary, and I am not buying that they don't let him exercise in his cell. Perhaps they don't let him have a pillow or exercise and if that's the case it is excessive, but I don't buy it based merely on the word of his newfound cult worshippers.

Like I said, this is pretty similar to solitary everywhere else in the country, and the suddent outrage over it because of speculative assertions that the government is doing it just to get back of him are indictive of just the sort of opportunistic outrage I'm talking about.



Except that it doesn't. Stathol says so, and Stathol says the 8th ammendment says so. Fine, you're entitled to your opinion, but the fact remains that he's not being subject to anything out of the ordinary, and in any case, he is a UCMJ defendant, and the Constitution grants Congress significant power to make rules for the military. Just because what he's subject to might not be acceptable for a civilian means nothing.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

It's alleged that he broke those rules. There hasn't been a trial yet. Punishing him now on the presumption that he committed the crime violates every legal principle in this country, UCMJ or not.


I wasn't aware that the opinon that suspects should be treated humanely before, during, and (if found guilty) after their trial was "foolish". I'll bear that in mind.


Oh, this is fun. Can I play?

Except that it does. Diamondeye says it doesn't, and Diamondeye says the 8th amendment doesn't apply.

So those these are the usual conditions for military personnel awaiting a court martial?

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

The military likes us to think they enlisted grunts leave their freedoms and constitutional protections at the door when they sign up, but that's not actually true. We let some things slide, such as we accept that a grunt can't mouth off to his sergeant despite having a first amendment right to the freedom of speech. (Because let's face it, the military wouldn't function if a sergeant wasn't allowed to belt a mouthy private). Our boys are still our boys. Go ahead and swallow the notion that they play by different rules, but make no mistake: The United States Military is not exempt from the Constitution. They are a federal agency.

Leaving your rights at the door, giving up your rights while you're enlisted, or operating under different rules are all just things that the military tells us (both recruits and civilians) so that nobody questions their actions. They are not actually true. That doesn't mean different rules aren't written up and clearly defined somewhere. In fact, I'm positive they are. However, I would direct your attention to Article VI:

Note the order in which those items appear. They clearly define a heirarchy, with the Constitution at the top. Amendment 8 does apply, as does Amendment 6. Any military statute contrary is superceded by the Constitution. Supreme law of the land is very clear and precise.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Yeah you can't mouth off at work without repercussions either.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

I haven't yet seen any evidence that he's being punished. He's being held in pre-trial confinement, which is a well-established legal principle; the Constitution clearly allows it under the 8th ammendment by prohibiting excessive bail. Bail is clearly allowed and the only purpose it serves is to excuse people from pre-trial confinement.

He's being held under harsh conditions, yes, but a large part of that is simply the need to prevent him from becoming a media circus, and getting himself exonerated in the press, and especially in the court of public opinion that has already made up their minds he's some sort of hero. Just as he shouldn't be convicted in the press or in the public eye before going to trial, he shouldn't be allowed to exonerate himself through grandstanding either.



This is a different issue. Some of the details of his confinement may be harsh and might be unacceptable, but the fact that he is closely confined and the length thereof are not in that category, nor do they establish that he is being punished. Furthermore, I haven't yet seen any addressing of the point that the sudden appearance of outrage over this particular guy speaks to the fact that quite a bit of it is simply outrage that he's not simply being let go on his merry way because some people like what he did and seixing on his confinement as a red herring to pursue.

Again, is this an argument for prison reform in pre-trial confinement in general, or is it suddenly a problem just because its Bradley Manning? I imagine that depends on who we're talking about.



Sure, you can play except DE didn't say it didn't apply. I simply said you haven't established that it's a violation of the 8th ammendment other than by your own subjective say-so. I didn't say it's not a violation. So they only thing you;re playing right now is strawmanning. Have you any court cases to cite? You showed one already, but I didn't see you explain how it was similar, other than that they are both vaguely in the category of "pissed off the government royally", especially since one is under UCMJ and the other isn't, and there is a sevenfold-difference in how long they've been confined.



There are different levels of security, just as in the civilian world, but the conditions are not all that different, although I have no direct experience (either on the giving or the receiving end) of military confinement. However, I have conducted a summary court-martial in the past and I did have the option of sending the soldier to confinement for thirty days (I ended up finding her not guilty, so it never become an issue) and from what familiariztion I did get with confinement, it is pretty spartan and harsh. It might not be the same in all details as Mannings', but the cases are not the same either.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Corolointh likes us to think he knows what he's talking about, but he doesn't bother to check himself before he starts writing. The military does not claim anyone leaves their freedoms at the door, and in fact, court rulings specifically prohibit that. One's various freedoms are not given up by joining the military; they simply cannot be exercised in any way one pleases while acting as a member of the military. For example, you can go to an anti-war protest as a soldier, you just can't do so in uniform, or during duty hours.

Furthermore, the military is different from other federal agencies in that Congress is explicitly granted additional powers in regard to it. Congress cannot, for example, create a UCMJ-equivalent for the Department of Transportation.

Finally, a sergeant cannot hit a mouthy private and hasn't technically been allowed to for a very long time, although that sort of thing went on well after it was technically prohibited. There are plenty of ways to make a smartass regret it without hitting him. The only time you can put your hands on a soldier are A) when it's part of the training (such as unarmed combat) B) when the soldier is attacking you or someone else or C) if the soldier is doing something unsafe with a weapon and safety requires putting an immidiate stop to it.



The military doesn't tell anyone any such thing. That's simply shorthand for pointing out that, when it affects military operations, good order, and discipline, the military can set the rules.

It has nothing to do with "nobody questioning their actions", either. This is simply a canard that fits the preconceptions and stereotypes many people get of the military through too many bad movies. The military is quite used to being questioned all the time, and quite used to being portrayted as wrong all the time, no matter what, in the interest of selling newspapers.

Note the order in which those items appear. They clearly define a heirarchy, with the Constitution at the top. Amendment 8 does apply, as does Amendment 6. Any military statute contrary is superceded by the Constitution. Supreme law of the land is very clear and precise.[/quote]

Except that it doesn't matter because they A) aren't being violated and B) because you conveniently left out where Congress is permitted to make rules for the military. Ammendments do not supersede the main body except where they directly override a portion of it (such as ammending the process for electing Senators or the President).

In other words, while the military must still obey he 8th and 6th ammendments, it does not necessarily have to do so in the same fashion as civilians are accustomed to.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Attention to the bolded part: While I feel that before being proven guilty you should still be afforded all the humane treatment that your citizenship and the Constitution allows...

Once you are convicted of a crime, you have no rights anymore. You threw them away. At that point you* essentially are now just a waste of oxygen that others could better utilize.



*This use of you does not imply any specific person, merely the rather vague "you" of whomever may be applicable.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

The Jets stopped the torture of Peyton Manning on Saturday

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Impractical nonsense. Everyone commits a crime sooner or later. Things like your quote are fun to say, and makes you sound "tough on crime" but there's very little rational analysis behind them.

Punishment should be appropriate for the crime.

I can say with a high degree of certainty that the contents of your computer allow the federal government to put you in prison for life should they want to and can convince a judge to issue a search warrant.