

The inhumane conditions of Bradley Manning's detention - roadnottaken
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/14/manning/

======
grandalf
This is utterly shocking. I had no idea that solitary confinement was used in
cases other than to prevent physical harm to an inmate or to prevent violence.

It looks like the technique is being used the same way as a "stress position"
to slowly turn Manning into a hopeless wreck willing to say anything to see
the light of day again.

Regardless of what Manning did (and regardless of whether or not I find it
offensive) I don't think anyone -- especially nonviolent offenders -- should
be subjected to such inhumane treatment.

~~~
thrill
Do you think we should leave a mint on his (non)pillow every night? The
accusations against this military person, who voluntarily violated his oath to
protect the nation's secrets, are very serious, and PRIVATE, not Mister,
Manning is being held to the same standards any other military person is
liable to, and is quite likely to face execution by firing squad.

~~~
wnoise
The oath is to protect the U.S. Constitution, not the nation's secrets (except
as follows under general orders and the UCMJ).

> "I, _____, 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."

Is it necessary to leak these cables to support and defend the Constitution?
Probably not. But there is clear precedent that illegal orders (contradicting
either the UCMJ or the Constitution) are not supposed to be obeyed.

Espionage charges are laid out in 10 USC 906a:
[http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_10_00000906---
a000...](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_10_00000906---a000-.html)
and conviction has to prove "intent or reason to believe that it is to be used
to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation",
and the death penalty requires one of a number of aggravating circumstances
that don't seem to apply.

He certainly will be locked up, undoubtedly for quite some time, but he's not
going to be executed (if the law is followed).

~~~
bgentry
Hasn't he in fact disobeyed the orders of his superior officers by leaking the
cables (which were marked "CONFIDENTIAL")?

There are a few reasons why disobeying such an order would be acceptable, but
I doubt the military will take it easy on him unless it his obvious that every
bit of info he leaked was directly related to some kind of war crime being
carried out by his superiors.

------
SandB0x
Some people have been in solitary confinement for almost 40 years:

[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9839730...](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=98397302)

[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/27/books/review/Letters-t-
PRI...](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/27/books/review/Letters-t-
PRISONERSOFA_LETTERS.html)

(nb this is not meant as a comparison - Bradley Manning's treatment is most
definitely inhumane)

------
joshfraser
I'm finding it harder and harder these days to be proud of being an American.

------
alexqgb
I suspect being jailed without trial is only going to confirm Manning's
suspicion that he was calling bullshit on some seriously lawless people.

Kid's got stones the size of Texas.

------
rokamic
I think Michael Moore said it best.

"I ask you to imagine how much different our world would be if WikiLeaks had
existed 10 years ago. Take a look at this photo. That's Mr. Bush about to be
handed a "secret" document on August 6th, 2001. Its heading read: "Bin Ladin
Determined To Strike in US." And on those pages it said the FBI had discovered
"patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations
for hijackings." Mr. Bush decided to ignore it and went fishing for the next
four weeks.

But if that document had been leaked, how would you or I have reacted? What
would Congress or the FAA have done? Was there not a greater chance that
someone, somewhere would have done something if all of us knew about bin
Laden's impending attack using hijacked planes?"

read more at [http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/why-
im-p...](http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/why-im-posting-
bail-money)

------
DupDetector
Duplicate:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2009268>

1 comment.

~~~
carbocation
RiderOfGiraffes, is this you?

~~~
DupDetector
See here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2008143>

I'm looking for a separation of concerns, separating my submissions as me,
finding things or writing things, from my curating activities of finding
duplicates and cross-referencing, wherein I try to prevent the repetition of
discussion across effectively identical submissions.

I'm also using it as an opportunity to put into practice some of the things
I've learned about semantic analysis, Bayesian filters, and automated web
interactions.

It's an experiment. It probably won't last long.

~~~
carbocation
Great; I like it.

------
lotusleaf1987
Cruel and unusual punishment. This is ridiculous and makes me feel ashamed to
be an American.

~~~
icegreentea
And Guantanamo didn't?

~~~
Semiapies
It's not a contest.

~~~
Andys
I think icegreentea might be wondering why there is outrage now, when this
sort of thing has been going on for really a long time.

eg. A fellow Australian (David Hicks) was held for years at Guantanamo without
charge or trial. Rightly or wrongly, it feels like: no one cared then, why
care now?

~~~
mquander
No one cared then? Exactly the same people cared then as now. I'm pretty sure
that if you page through Glenn Greenwald's blog you will find _more than a
few_ instances of outrage over the treatment of military prisoners (including
Hicks specifically.)

