Breaking Story

[Zebo]

How about we prove it first maluckey. Until then innocent until proven guilty and conditions he is kept in are appalling and are mental torture.

If anyone is interested Glenn Greenwald has been cataloging the year long abuses.

That said I'm not surprised. We perfected this shit in South America for 50 years and Obama has excused torture, opposes habeas corpus and demanded more secret government since taking office. Keep the faith I done lost it.

 

[irishScott]

It is odd on its face. However we have only heard / read one side of the story. I would like to hear what the other side has to say before making any wild claims of abuse etc.

Solitary confinement isn't abuse IMO.

Yeah it is. Over time with no contact and no stimulation you lose track of time and can even start to hallucinate. I ready a documentary about a guy who was in solitary for over a decade and got parole. He can't drive due to sensory atrophy (he literally can't take in the details). It's a horrible punishment.

In manning's case however, it is well deserved.

 

[irishScott]

You didnt get any bitterness and revenge seeking from that post?



I know.

Hmmm. Bitterness against a traitor. Yeah that makes no sense at all.

The guy knowingly broke the law. I don't care about his personal convictions, you knowingly commit a crime you better be prepared to suffer the consequences, including the hatred of the people you betrayed.

 

[Zebo]

Yeah it is. Over time with no contact and no stimulation you lose track of time and can even start to hallucinate. I ready a documentary about a guy who was in solitary for over a decade and got parole. He can't drive due to sensory atrophy (he literally can't take in the details). It's a horrible punishment.

In manning's case however, it is well deserved.

Punitive measures are for guilty/ticking bomb not held uncharged for almost a year totally in violation of the Constitution.

* Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.



* Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

 

[Craig234]

That`s why we lost the war in Vietman you frakin idiot!!

You have got to be kidding.

I can see I'd be wasting my time to bring up the issue that we shouldn't even have STARTED the war in Vietnam, that we'd been supporting occupation.

The military could either have had even greater losses, or started nuclear war. We had enough of their lies about the situation and bad plans with great cost already.

The civilian leadership in McNamara had it right when he turned against the war.

 

[JEDIYoda]

You have got to be kidding.

I can see I'd be wasting my time to bring up the issue that we shouldn't even have STARTED the war in Vietnam, that we'd been supporting occupation.

The military could either have had even greater losses, or started nuclear war. We had enough of their lies about the situation and bad plans with great cost already.

The civilian leadership in McNamara had it right when he turned against the war.

here we go again...sad if we had people like you in office during ww2 we would be speaking German right now..

 

[LumbergTech]

here we go again...sad if we had people like you in office during ww2 we would be speaking German right now..

what does occupying vietnam have to do with fighting germany because of its quest for domination

 

[Craig234]

here we go again...sad if we had people like you in office during ww2 we would be speaking German right now..

No, we wouldn't, like FDR, we'd have fought and won.

If Germany had people like you in office in the 30's, they'd have started WWII.

 

[pcgeek11]

Punitive measures are for guilty/ticking bomb not held uncharged for almost a year totally in violation of the Constitution.

* Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.



* Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

See what I mean. Most people do not understand the difference between the two. Military Justice is not the same as Civilian. They don't have to abide by the same rules. This is what he signed up for Voluntarily when he joined the service.

I was reading the online discussion between Manning and Lamo here:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/wikileaks-chat/

As far as I'm concerned it is a full confession and the little prick deserves everything he is getting.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Punitive measures are for guilty/ticking bomb not held uncharged for almost a year totally in violation of the Constitution.

* Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.



* Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), get to know it.
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/l/blucmj.htm

 

[Londo_Jowo]

THIS is a separate issue from any (bogus) claim that her electronic proof only (it is valid proof and was enough each and every time before) of registration requires that they impound her car.

Nevertheless, House, the attorney, has done NOTHING wrong. He has run afoul of NO regulation, no matter how petty.

He IS Manning's attorney and IS on the approved visitor list and yet they are refusing to let him have his legally mandated visit.

Therefore, this is not a question of the MP's following the letter of the law of their regulations, but rather, in barring the attorney, of flouting THEIR OWN LEGAL DIRECTIVES.

I will say it again, Jane Hamsher is a film producer and David M House is a reporter, neither are lawyers. Private Manning's lawyer is David Coombs. The guards prevented a film producer and reporter access to Private Manning.

 

[actuarial]

Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), get to know it.
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/l/blucmj.htm

From your link:

ART. 13 PUNISHMENT PROHIBITED BEFORE TRIAL

No person, while being held for trial, may be subjected to punishment or penalty other than arrest or confinement upon the charges pending against him, nor shall the arrest or confinement imposed upon him be any more rigorous than the circumstances required to insure his presence, but he may be subjected to minor punishment during that period for infractions of discipline.

Why is solitary confinement required to insure his presence?

ART. 10. RESTRAINT OF PERSONS CHARGED WITH OFFENSES

Any person subject to this chapter charged with an offense under this chapter shall be ordered into arrest or confinement, as circumstances may require; but when charged only with an offense normally tried by a summary court-martial, he shall not ordinarily be placed in confinement. When any person subject to this chapter is placed in arrest or confinement prior to trial, immediate steps shall be taken to inform him of the specific wrong of which he is accused and to try him or to dismiss the charges and release him.

Have they taken immediate steps to try him?

 

[Red Dawn]

Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), get to know it.
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/l/blucmj.htm

In the military, if you don't want to do the time don't get accused of the crime.

 

[WelshBloke]

Hmmm. Bitterness against a traitor. Yeah that makes no sense at all.

The guy knowingly broke the law. I don't care about his personal convictions, you knowingly commit a crime you better be prepared to suffer the consequences, including the hatred of the people you betrayed.

Once you swap the search for Justice to the search for vengeance in a legal system it all starts getting a bit unpleasant.

 

[Scotteq]

I will say it again, Jane Hamsher is a film producer and David M House is a reporter, neither are lawyers. Private Manning's lawyer is David Coombs. The guards prevented a film producer and reporter access to Private Manning.

Then Good for the Guards!

 

[werepossum]

What I see is that they are now enforcing what is typically required to enter and vist a prisoner. In this case it's proof of insurance (on hand, in writing) to enter a military base. Remember, a military base is NOT under the same laws as the United States. If they wish to search the car, detain the car, seize the car, they can....ESPECIALLY if it's not following the laws of the base and/or state in which the base is located, then they can do so. MPs do normally suffer fools gladly.

They are also likely irritated that the smug prick (the suspect) is being allowed visitors at all.

He's most certainly going to be charged with voluntary disclosure of classified material, which could end up with decades behind bars if all counts are added up. He could be charged with treason. The maximum penalty for treason can be death under aggravated circumstances.

The MPs are certainly no friends of that prick, and will likely follow to the letter, all requirements spelled out, if given the chance.

I would...and then some

Agreed, and well said.

We need to impeach that traitor in chief obama.

As much as I love your sig and dislike Obama - WTF?

 

[Scotteq]

Once you swap the search for Justice to the search for vengeance in a legal system it all starts getting a bit unpleasant.

I would opine that once you turn reporters and film makers loose in a legal system, it gets a bit unpleasant, as well.

 

[WelshBloke]

I would opine that once you turn reporters and film makers loose in a legal system, it gets a bit unpleasant, as well.

Why? The legal system should be open and exposed to scrutiny, if its not reported how does the public know that justice is done?

 

[Scotteq]

Why? The legal system should be open and exposed to scrutiny, if its not reported how does the public know that justice is done?

Because "News" is now a form of mass entertaiment. MSNBC and Fox have successfully killed even the illusion of "Truth".


Not to mention that allowing reporters and film in - Before the Trial - grants the opportunity for the accused/defense to create their own version of the facts and publicize it. Post trial? Sure thing. Pretrial? No.


http://www.answers.com/topic/pretrial-publicity-and-the-gag-rule

http://www.rbs2.com/pretrial.pdf

 

[WelshBloke]

Because "News" is now a form of mass entertaiment. MSNBC and Fox have successfully killed even the illusion of "Truth".


Not to mention that allowing reporters and film in - Before the Trial - grants the opportunity for the accused/defense to create their own version of the facts and publicize it. Post trial? Sure thing. Pretrial? No.


http://www.answers.com/topic/pretrial-publicity-and-the-gag-rule

http://www.rbs2.com/pretrial.pdf

I've never seen that excuse used to justify holding someone in solitary confinement before.

You can dress it up however you like but most of whats happening is from vindictiveness not a search for justice.

 

[Scotteq]

I've never seen that excuse used to justify holding someone in solitary confinement before.

You can dress it up however you like but most of whats happening is from vindictiveness not a search for justice.

So... Now we change the topic from allowing a reporter and a filmmaker in to the question of Solitary?

 

[WelshBloke]

So... Now we change the topic from allowing a reporter and a filmmaker in to the question of Solitary?

The fact that they are a reporter and a film maker is irrelevant. You're the one who brought that into it.

 

[Scotteq]

The fact that they are a reporter and a film maker is irrelevant.

Absolutely relevant, and for the reasons stated above. Not to mention the precedent has been established under US law to limit such contact in a pretrial setting. I even provided links. But if those aren't good enough for you, how about an American University Law Review paper on the subject

We can, and do as a matter of course, limit/prohibit media contact in a pretrial setting when the court determines it is in the interest of a fair trial. So the fact that this is a reporter and a filmmaker is absolutely relevent to the topic. And the (Military in this case) court damned well does have the power/right/authority to bar access. Period. End of Discussion.

The irrelevant part is whether you like it or not.


Now - If you want to argue that he shouldn't be in Solitary as a separate issue. Or that the conditions of his confinement violate rules regarding a speedy trial, or whatever. Then you would be on more solid ground.


But the argument that denying a reporter and filmmaker from accessing this man somehow violates US law is nothing but a pile of horse sh*t.

 

[alkemyst]

there are no conspiracies, right?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Military has their own rules.

Civilians need to understand that and realize that what they are used to outside the base is not the same as on the base.
Privileges/courtesy's are granted and can be revoked without explanation.
This goes for both military and civilian personnel.