UN Torture Investigator Denied Access to Bradley Manning

Originally posted by kittendaydreamer
I'm probably wrong about this (sorry in advance if so) but I thought that when you enlisted you basically lost your civil rights. Like how you'll follow the orders of the Pres. and/or superior officer (even if they are against US law) and the military (while you're enlisted) can basically do what they want because you gave up your rights when enlisting. Like how if you do something not against the law (don't pay bills, cheat on your spouse, fight or something with a superior officer...again just guessing) that they can throw you in the brig without trial or whatnot for however long they choose. So if he lost his civil rights he doesn't get the right to a lawyer or jury of peers.

Again I'm probably wrong on that so please correct me if so.

edit on 11-4-2011 by kittendaydreamer because: typo

kitten,

It may seem that when one swears an oath to serve the military one does lose certain civil rights. But I think that's not exactly true.

The Uniform Code of Military Conduct (UCMJ) is the set of "policies" (though for all intents and purposes they are 'laws') that all soldiers, to which officers or otherwise must adhere at all times. It is functionally more efficient than civil law, because the framework is limited to military personnel. There is little to no debate on the reassessment of the validity or standing of the code as the authority to act against those who disobey it.

Military standards of incarceration and punishment are substantially different from the civilian world.

What Manning is alleged to have done is snag what appeared to be a large collection of diplomatic cables and passed them to a known whistle blower site - which happens to be outside the jurisdiction of the US government (at least for now.) I keep hearing allegations about his treatment and condition being 'questionable' but since he has access to lawyer, I think we can almost assuredly discount them as biased. The US military has certain constraints that it would be nearly impossible to break unless they were outside the country under no supervision.

It troubles me that people think they know what 'the deal' is with this guy. No one does except him, his lawyer (presumably), the military prosecution, and maybe (maybe) someone inside the Wikileaks organization.

As for tossing around names like traitor and what not.... well... everyone is entitled to their own opinion... which is all it is for now... since its a matter of 'patriotism' it is all suspect.

reply to post by CosmosKid


Let's say you have a Nazi Death Camp soldier that had told the UN and the public about the Camps before tens of millions of souls were snuffed out...............would he be a traitor?

What we as a country have been doing for the last 50-60 years is wrong.

If your boss told you to do something wrong and keep quiet about it than it's okay?

No, there are morals......................and in my book, murder and torture are not moral acts.

Telling the public about horrendous acts is moral not keeping classified secrets that support the frap the human race has been undergoing because of the select few psychopaths running the planet at present.

If I were a soldier and my General told me to shoot your child in the head................I would not follow orders

Mother Earth is my country and humanity is my tribe, race and family.

To be kind, merciful and do unto others exactly as I would have them do unto me.

Just because you have "orders" doesn't make it right, sometimes one must judge if those orders are moral.

If they are not moral - ie: humane and beneficial for humanity, than screw the General's orders.

The Holocaust occurred because a lot of people that considered themselves "nice good people" simply "followed orders".

Some orders, some secrets must not be kept.

I won't give opinion on what Manning actually did, bc quite frankly I had to have my husband explain it to me...I didn't even know what wikileaks was I still don't, and I was told I was to NOT go to wikileaks, under any circumstance, because (apparently they're monitored) and if it comes back to a household where my husband was living, seen at, or is living at, he can be thrown into a very very big pile of cow doodoo and get into bigggggg trouble. Therefore, all I know is the general idea....the guy transferred files onto a thumb drive, by the thousands, and put them on wikileaks, as somewhat of a "prove how easy it is to steal files" kind of statement.

As far as this 'torture', I apologize but this is not my strongest subject as far as keeping informed. I will say what they're doing is inhumane, and I'm not sure if the information they're looking for is worth all of this, it doesn't seem as though "telling" someone they're suicidal and making him sleep naked as the day he's born will accomplish much. Yes, supposedly he smarted off and mentioned he could use his flip-flops and underwear elastic....errm, not a good move, guy. But, If anything this treatment will only damage his psyche, he will slip away into the place he wants to be (mentally), and then anything they're wanting to accomplish (and I will admit, I don't know what that is) will be completely flushed down the toilet.

Live with it. It's what you are America the fourth Riech, I have to say as an outsider it amazes me that you dont,won't or can't seem to see the wood for the trees.
Oh well c'est la gare.

Originally posted by clintdelicious
reply to post by kittendaydreamer

 

I dont think this is true, I saw a former American soldier talking about this and he said that it was up to the soldier to a certain extent to deny illegal orders, if they comply after being ordered by a supirior to do something illegal they can still be charged with the crime.

This is very wrong, even if he leaked info as a soldier he should be treated better than the average person, but my guess is he's being treated very badly as a 'spy' when really he just wanted to release info that he felt was wrong to withold from the public.

Originally posted by Maxmars
reply to post by kittendaydreamer

 

kitten,

It may seem that when one swears an oath to serve the military one does lose certain civil rights. But I think that's not exactly true.

The Uniform Code of Military Conduct (UCMJ) is the set of "policies" (though for all intents and purposes they are 'laws') that all soldiers, to which officers or otherwise must adhere at all times. It is functionally more efficient than civil law, because the framework is limited to military personnel. There is little to no debate on the reassessment of the validity or standing of the code as the authority to act against those who disobey it.

Military standards of incarceration and punishment are substantially different from the civilian world.

What Manning is alleged to have done is snag what appeared to be a large collection of diplomatic cables and passed them to a known whistle blower site - which happens to be outside the jurisdiction of the US government (at least for now.) I keep hearing allegations about his treatment and condition being 'questionable' but since he has access to lawyer, I think we can almost assuredly discount them as biased. The US military has certain constraints that it would be nearly impossible to break unless they were outside the country under no supervision.

It troubles me that people think they know what 'the deal' is with this guy. No one does except him, his lawyer (presumably), the military prosecution, and maybe (maybe) someone inside the Wikileaks organization.

As for tossing around names like traitor and what not.... well... everyone is entitled to their own opinion... which is all it is for now... since its a matter of 'patriotism' it is all suspect.

Thanks for the info guys. I wasn't really sure, so again thanks for the clarification. I was going off old memories from talking to friends who enlisted years and years ago.

I don't know wheter to laugh or cry. So many responses from people that are basically "I know he is guilty cause the tv-man said so".

reply to post by Vanna


You might also wan't to avoid the guardian and all the other news papers who've reported all the exact same issues. Hell just using internet might be dangerous

Originally posted by Revolution-2012
reply to post by Compass99

 

reply to post by HomerinNC

 

These must be paid trolls.

Honestly, no one can be that illiterate.

Thank god morons like you wont serve or we'd be worse off

Originally posted by Compass99
Manning is a treasonous little and should never see the light of day again. Screw the UN.

no he has to act lawfully and it was only after he failed using the correct channels that he decided to leak the documents. the man is a hero not a scumbag. the american government is legally bound by the geneva convention and it is they which have broken the law.
please do a little research first. opinion is cheap and your comment adds no value to this

Originally posted by purplemer

no he has to act lawfully and it was only after he failed using the correct channels that he decided to leak the documents

That makes him a CRIMINAL, not a HERO

reply to post by OldCorp


A "traitor of the worst kind?" With all the information this site has to offer you're going to single out 23 year old Bradley Manning as the worst kind of a traitor? You can't be serious, especially when you read about how other people have been prosecuted under The Espionage Act: even government agents get the dignity of clothing.

And you seem convinced that Bradley, like some scorned juvenile, did what he did just to be malicious and selfish. What are you basing these accusations on? I come to a very different conclusion based on his chat logs with Adrian Lamo:

Wired.com

(04:45:20 PM) Lamo: or a spy

(04:45:48 PM) Manning: i couldn’t be a spy…
(04:45:59 PM) Manning: spies dont post things up for the world to see

(02:18:34 AM) Lamo: what’s your endgame plan, then?
(02:18:36 AM) Manning: it was vulnerable as #
(02:20:57 AM) Manning: well, it was forwarded to WL
(02:21:18 AM) Manning: and god knows what happens now
(02:22:27 AM) Manning: hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms
(02:23:06 AM) Manning: if not… than we’re doomed
(02:23:18 AM) Manning: as a species
(02:24:13 AM) Manning: i will officially give up on the society we have if nothing happens

(02:12:23 PM) Manning: so… it was a massive data spillage… facilitated by numerous factors… both physically, technically, and culturally
(02:13:02 PM) Manning:: perfect example of how not to do INFOSEC
(02:14:21 PM) Manning: listened and lip-synced to Lady Gaga’s Telephone while exfiltratrating possibly the largest data spillage in american history
(02:15:03 PM) Manning: pretty simple, and unglamorous
(02:16:37 PM) Manning: *exfiltrating
(02:17:56 PM) Manning: weak servers, weak logging, weak physical security, weak counter-intelligence, inattentive signal analysis… a perfect storm
(02:19:03 PM) Manning: >sigh<
(02:19:19 PM) Manning: sounds pretty bad huh?
(02:20:06 PM) Lamo: kinda :x (02:20:25 PM) Manning: :L
(02:20:52 PM) Lamo: i mean, for the .mil
(02:21:08 PM) Manning: well, it SHOULD be better
(02:21:32 PM) Manning: its sad
(02:22:47 PM) Manning: i mean what if i were someone more malicious
(02:23:25 PM) Manning: i could’ve sold to russia or china, and made bank?
(02:23:36 PM) Lamo: why didn’t you?
(02:23:58 PM) Manning: because it’s public data
(02:24:15 PM) Lamo: i mean, the cables
(02:24:46 PM) Manning: it belongs in the public domain
(02:25:15 PM) Manning: information should be free
(02:25:39 PM) Manning: it belongs in the public domain
(02:26:18 PM) Manning: because another state would just take advantage of the information… try and get some edge
(02:26:55 PM) Manning: if its out in the open… it should be a public good
(02:27:04 PM) Manning: *do the
(02:27:23 PM) Manning: rather than some slimy intel collector
(02:29:18 PM) Manning: im crazy like that

(02:31:02 PM) Manning: i think the thing that got me the most… that made me rethink the world more than anything
(02:35:46 PM) Manning: was watching 15 detainees taken by the Iraqi Federal Police… for printing “anti-Iraqi literature”… the iraqi federal police wouldn’t cooperate with US forces, so i was instructed to investigate the matter, find out who the “bad guys” were, and how significant this was for the FPs… it turned out, they had printed a scholarly critique against PM Maliki… i had an interpreter read it for me… and when i found out that it was a benign political critique titled “Where did the money go?” and following the corruption trail within the PM’s cabinet… i immediately took that information and *ran* to the officer to explain what was going on… he didn’t want to hear any of it… he told me to shut up and explain how we could assist the FPs in finding *MORE* detainees…

You shouldn't really put that much faith on chat logs. Especially when they originate from a known hacker.

Originally posted by HomerinNC
Originally posted by purplemer

no he has to act lawfully and it was only after he failed using the correct channels that he decided to leak the documents

That makes him a CRIMINAL, not a HERO

edit on 4/12/2011 by HomerinNC because: (no reason given)

what would you do..remain silent and complicit in war crimes? reporting a crime is not a crime. that is what he did..

reply to post by PsykoOps


I agree, but what else do we have to go on right now?

Yeah that's kinda the point. I never understood this Manning affair personally. Seems like pure insanity to me.

reply to post by purplemer


I wouldnt violate the oath I took concerning classified materials, I would do my DAMNEST to get it released LEGALLY

Originally posted by HomerinNC
reply to post by purplemer

 

I wouldnt e the oath I took concerning classified materials, I would do my DAMNEST to get it released LEGALLY

he tried the correct channels and was told to shut up. he was not violating the oath. a solider in according to their oath has to act lawfully and if he does not he is complicit in those crimes...

kx

Originally posted by purplemer

Originally posted by HomerinNC
reply to post by purplemer

 

I wouldnt e the oath I took concerning classified materials, I would do my DAMNEST to get it released LEGALLY

he tried the correct channels and was told to shut up. he was not violating the oath. a solider in according to their oath has to act lawfully and if he does not he is complicit in those crimes...

kx

He violated that oath when he took it upon HIMSELF to release CLASSIFIED materials he was not AUTHORIZED to do so. THAT MADE HIM A CRIMINAL AND A TRAITOR.
I Assume you NEVER served in the military, or you would understand what I am talking about

I'm not going to explain this anymore, He is a scumbag, a traitor to this country and the oath he took, and a disgrace to the uniform.
He will get EXACTLY what he DESERVES.
My mind will not be swayed or changed on this, so its useless to go on about it.

Originally posted by HomerinNC

Originally posted by purplemer

Originally posted by HomerinNC
reply to post by purplemer

 

I wouldnt e the oath I took concerning classified materials, I would do my DAMNEST to get it released LEGALLY

he tried the correct channels and was told to shut up. he was not violating the oath. a solider in according to their oath has to act lawfully and if he does not he is complicit in those crimes...

kx

He violated that oath when he took it upon HIMSELF to release CLASSIFIED materials he was not AUTHORIZED to do so. THAT MADE HIM A CRIMINAL AND A TRAITOR.
I Assume you NEVER served in the military, or you would understand what I am talking about

I'm not going to explain this anymore, He is a scumbag, a traitor to this country and the oath he took, and a disgrace to the uniform.
He will get EXACTLY what he DESERVES.
My mind will not be swayed or changed on this, so its useless to go on about it.

edit on 4/12/2011 by HomerinNC because: (no reason given)

from a military man.....

In 2005, General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters: “It is absolutely the responsibility of every U.S. service member [in Iraq], if they see inhumane treatment being conducted, to try to stop it.” This, in other words, was the obligation of every U.S. service member in Operation Iraqi Freedom; this remains the obligation of every U.S. service member in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. It is a duty that Pfc. Manning has fulfilled.

...

Ever since our country signed and ratified the Geneva Conventions and the Convention against Torture, it has been the law of our land that handing over prisoners to a body that will torture them is a war crime. Nevertheless, between early 2009 and August of last year, our military handed over thousands of prisoners to the Iraqi authorities, knowing full well what would happen to many of them.

revista-amauta.org...

so who is the criminal here... two illegal wars unratified by the un and a country complicit in war crimes. he was acting lawfully in his actions. would you like to provide some information to negate the above....

^^

x

Originally posted by HomerinNC
reply to post by purplemer

 

I wouldnt violate the oath I took concerning classified materials, I would do my DAMNEST to get it released LEGALLY

and how do you propose you do that....

whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg stated in an interview that "If Bradley Manning has done what he is alleged to have done, I congratulate him. He has used his opportunities very well. He has upheld his oath of office to support the Constitution. It so happens that enlisted men also take an oath to obey the orders of superiors. Officers don’t make that oath, only to the Constitution. But sometimes the oath to the Constitution and oath to superiors are in conflict" while Wikileaks "is serving our democracy and serving our rule of law precisely by challenging the secrecy regulations, which are not laws in most cases, in this country.

Text

wikispooks.com...