Political & Elections

Since this was bumped, I will mention that a state department representative resigned after publicly discussing the conditions

Right on point, creaturely.

Cartera wrote:

---

My post was in response to your assertion that Manning has blood on his hands. There is no evidence of that. If, however, "blood on the hands" is the standard, then there are those at the top of the food chain who are swimming in it  Of course, this is my opinion.

---

One major difference I see. Those at the top with the blood on their hands were elected/appointed to make those decisions, good or bad whether you agreed with them or not. This SOB wasn't.

Bullet, my answer to your question is "no."  I do not think future benefits are worth endangering any life. However, what's done is done so if anything good can come of it, I hope it does. I have a very good friend in Afghanistan now and my heart literally skips a beat every time I hear a bad piece of news from there. One of my best friends lost her son to a sniper in Fallujah. She has been an anti war activist since Viet Nam but I have not talked to her about Manning.

And yet, your loudest and most strident voice here is for the perpetrator of this treachery, and not the victims.

Although I think we've basically reached a point where we understand each other, I'll just note that the topic of the post is "Glen Greenwald: Obama administration torturing Bradley Manning" rather than, for example: "What principles are at stake in the Manning case?"  Perhaps that is one reason that it was 5 or 6 posts in to our discussion that you verbally expressed a concern for the troops equal to or greater than your relish for Manning's suffering-- a fact I do not take as an expression of your general priorities.  In general terms, however, it would seem that-- with respect to this matter at least-- our respective expressive styles are not to the other's taste. 

I've certainly not asked you to apologize for anything.  And Pima, now that it is clear that my interpretation of what Bullet was saying was correct, I'll take your silence on the matter as an acknowledgment that no apology is owed. 

Being incarcerated isn't fun, but especially when you have broken the UCMJ.

pmrlcomm, my sincerest sympathies for you and yours. My prayers are with you and your family for your loss.


Me:

" (BTW, not once before this post has any of your previous posts on this subject demonstrated your concerns for the welfare of the troops. They have instead demonstrated your concern for the welfare of the person who put those troops in danger. Just saying.) "

creaturely,


And yet-- mirabile dictu-- both concerns are real.

I have no doubt you have concerns for both sides, creaturely. And yet, your loudest and most strident voice here is for the perpetrator of this treachery, and not the victims. I truly do understand your hopes for justice for both criminal and victim in this case. But like I said, the crimes were too close to home for me. And while I share you calls for justice, I don't share your concern for the criminal's comfort in this case, and honestly do wish him ill-will. These trifling issues Mr. Manning is complaining about do not equate to "torture"; they equate to standard procedures for the US Military Barracks system and UCMJ. As such, I have no ear for those who want to play the "Torture card" for the sake of getting special and better treatment for this idiot.

As to wiki-leaks publishing the information he has provided? Again, Freedom of the Press trumps all, andwhile disgusting that this site would publish classified analysis of the success or failure of tactics and procedures we currently are employing in the conflicts we are engaged in, I do think the issue will be too hot a potato for the administration to take a stand on. I do however note that most "professional journalists and media outlets", while doing everything in their power possible to ensure oversight of the worst aspects of America's government (for which I applaud their efforts); they have refused time and again to publish classified information they deemed would endanger American troops for ethical and moral reasons. Somewhere Ernie Pyle and Walter Cronkite are weeping that Mr Assange dares to associate himself with their profession.

But that is an entirely different matter than the actions taken by Mr. Manning; confusing the two issues here irrelevant.

Having a family member KIA this past summer in Afghanistan I can tell you that if what this "patriot" did cost one incremental soldier's life then I would hope that the souls of him and anyone who supports his treachery burns in Hell for eternity.

-- Edited by pmrlcomm on Sunday 19th of December 2010 07:40:20 AM

creaturely,

While I admire your conviction, the blood on PFC Manning's hands comes too close to home for me to excuse on any higher moral ground. On the big scale of justice, while my celebration of the "illegal and immoral torment" of PFC Manning is bothersome to some, it is far outweighed by PFC Manning's betrayal and the risks of harm he placed on those tens of thousands you also show concern for.

(BTW, not once before this post has any of your previous posts on this subject demonstrated your concerns for the welfare of the troops. They have instead demonstrated your concern for the welfare of the person who put those troops in danger. Just saying.)

I'll do a few Hail Mary's tonight before I go to bed to ask forgiveness for thinking and talking about what I would consider justice for this traitor. I'm sure I'll sleep like a baby afterwards. This idiot will need just a few more Mea Culpas than I for the actions he partook in to get a similar level of feeling of redemption. But he has no outside disturbances that can keep him awake (outside of a guilty conscience), so he's got that going for him.



I am a little confused by first your statement, however. Exactly what did PFC Manning do FOR his fellow troops that makes you believe his putting them in jeopardy was worth it?

As to your second statement? You can call his solitary confinement "torture" all you want. Still doesn't change the fact that it follows standard procedure. If YOU were the Warden at the Military's Disciplinary Barracks, would YOU put Mr. (the personnel at the DB refuse to acknowledge the rank of any prisoner there; from now on I will follow their example) Manning in the general prison population knowing this may risk his safety and could risk a possible prison riot?

As to the delay in his trial. The investigation remains on-going. Unlike in the civilian justice system, under UCMJ Mr. Manning can be held while this is occurring if the offense is considered serious enough. He was fully aware of this when he decided to break the rules while in uniform.



-- Edited by Bullet on Saturday 18th of December 2010 01:09:04 PM

Most of you know that I work inside the Pentagon. What I would expect almost none of you to know is that once a month, on a Friday, a special ceremony takes place within the corridors of that massive building. Scheduled to start at 12 O'Clock sharp, and starting at the Potomac entrance on the first floor, workers and visitors stop their daily routines to start lining the corridors of a specially selected path at about 1145. They show early to ensure they are not crowed out from the mass of people who are there, every time. They wait patiently for the moment to commence, telling themselves it is worth being there, worth sacrificing a few moments in their hectic schedule to partake in this event.

The crowd will hush just before the event's starting time. And then, a marching band will play, strategically placed halfway down the first corridor of this special route. The crowd will start to clap in time to the martial and patriotic tunes the band plays, knowing it is time to get ready. The crowds usually swell even further, as those who were once busily rushing down a side corridor on some errand for some General suddenly remember they now have something more important to be a part of. They thank goodness the music reminded them of the event and they didn't miss it.

And suddenly, we can start seeing the slow procession making its way down the center of the corridor, usually first announced by reaction of the crowd in front of us along the route. We see them, the soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen coming from the many VA centers in the National Capitol Region, particularly Walter Reed and Bethesda. Their march down the corridor is slow, for many are in wheel chairs, or on gurneys, or on crutches. Almost all have a loved one or crowd of family members trailing behind. And the first thing you see is the devastation these young (and not so young) men and women have suffered in the service of their country in a far away land. The injuries are horrific sometimes, but from a distance you can't help but look.

And as they are marching (or being pushed) down those corridors, most of the crowd will come forward as they pass and shake their hand, or pat their shoulder, with a smile on their face and a "Thank You" on their lips. The reaction from most of the wounded warriors is usually a smile in return and an softly spoken thanks as well. For the loved ones trailing behind, the scene is different. Many are smiling right along, accepting thanks, well wishes and hugs with true words of appreciation. But a few, oh how it hurts to talk about it, a few... Well, there are those family members walking those corridors with a shell-shocked look in their eyes, trying to come to an emotional balance between the outpouring of love displayed by the crowd, the devastating turn their life has taken as their world has turned up-side down now that they are faced with a life time commitment towards daily support of their injured loved one, and (to them) the surreal juxtaposition of the two this moment provides. Words can not describe that look in their eyes, or the way it hits you in the gut when you see it.

We clap and we cheer, us members of the crowd. We move forward to say our thanks and shake the hands of the wounded (although some are without this appendage now, and you need to just pat their shoulders instead). But we NEVER cry, although the emotional jolt to all is so gut-wrenching. Not here, not now. This is not the time for any here in this crowd to show any inkling of pity and pain for these brave men and women and their families. Those few in the crowd who can't control their emotions are quickly reminded of that fact or escorted away. We are here to celebrate and give thanks for sacrifice.

When the last family passes, the last gurney or wheel chair is far down the hall, the crowd begins to drift off back to their grind supporting America's military. We are thankful for the reminder that what we do today helps the men fighting at this moment, for us, somewhere far from home and loved ones. We dedicate ourselves to ensuring that the line of wounded warriors we just praised, which is usually very long, grows shorter each time until one day that ceremony would no longer be required. I usually have those feelings as well, but only after a few quiet moments alone in reflection, composing myself from the emotional roller-coaster I just rode. It's easy to feel glad to meet those wounded warriors; they are so appreciate of our showing of thanks and love. It's those few, those few.....  Those few of the family and loved ones with those haunted look in their eyes that makes it so hard to deal with afterwards. Those eyes haunt me every time.

So. Let me make myself perfectly clear here, ending the debate on what I "implied" or "intimated" on the subject of my views of justice and concern for PFC Manning, or whether I would take pleasure in his torment. This young man joined a brotherhood, willingly, and was most likely proud of his membership in that brotherhood. But for reasons of his own, whether misguided priorities or sense of duty to the truth or whatever, he BETRAYED the trust put in him by his fellow brothers and sisters in the military. Worse yet, his careless, thoughtless, and illegal actions put his fellow warriors at risk. Some may not return because of his actions, and some may end up joining that line of wounded warriors who march monthly the corridors of the Pentagon. And some family or loved one somewhere may also end up with that lost look in their eyes because of the illegal actions taken by PFC Manning.

So, no. I have NO pity or concern for the well-being PFC Manning and how he is treated during his incarceration. There is no level of Hell low enough to ensure the justice he deserves. And let me make myself PERFECTLY CLEAR: I hope, I pray, that his prison experience is horrific, to include daily "You're my wife now, punk!" sessions, if that is the case. I'll even knit him a nice see-through teddy for his prison garb, and send barrels full of vaseline to his cell-mate. To me, ultimate justice would be to ensure PFC Manning visits these wounded warriors and their families every month to explain his actions directly to them; I'm not sure they will be so kind as they are to us when we display our affections.

My only hope is that he lives a looooong life in this misery. My only regret is that when creaturely called me out on a comment I forgot I made I first acted defensive; when instead I should have researched the comment to confirm I made my sentiments clear and had the conviction to publicly confirm them again.

No, I do not weep for PFD Manning's treatment. Nothing he will have to endure is justice enough for me. Not after witnessing the people impacted by his illegal act, and the lives of families and fellow warriors that his actions may have crushed.

I kindly suggest to those who may want to put PFC Manning on a pedestal and cite him as a hero for his actions, or those like creaturely who have concern for how he is treated during incarceration, to instead focus their hero worship and concern on the individuals who properly deserve it: those fallen and wounded warriors and their families. For your sakes, I hope you too can witness an event like a wounded warrior march. For your sake, I also never want you to have to see those haunted eyes in person.



-- Edited by Bullet on Saturday 18th of December 2010 09:38:55 AM

-- Edited by Bullet on Saturday 18th of December 2010 09:45:20 AM

-- Edited by Bullet on Saturday 18th of December 2010 10:00:41 AM

I think it's clear Bullet earlier wrote something flippant, which we all do at times....

I DEFINETLY think we should do something about the person who supplied him the information. Long nights in a cold cell shared with a large and amorous prison cell mate come to mind.

He has acknowledged (honorably) to creaturely that he made the comment.

Now you could argue whether the remark implies that Bullet actually would be pleased by what a large and amorous prison cell mate would be likely to do with the likes of Manning or if he was merely taking some poetic license with his post and would not really wish that fate on any prisoner......but so far, you have to admit, even Bullet himself has not argued that point.

Creaturely has not been out of line and he doesn't owe anyone an apology.

I do not believe my statement crossed the line, nor do I believe I misperceived his post.  Indeed, I have yet to hear that he thinks I misperceived it. 

I agree-- the corporate world employs some rapists.  I think we can also agree that some rapists are unemployed as well.

You mean libel, rather than slander.  But in fact, I have done neither.  I don't think what Bullet said was admirable, though I have no reason to doubt he is admirable and honorable in many other ways.  And indeed, I would think it a not admirable thing to say even if I agreed with him about Manning in most other ways. 

The military has employed actual rapists, Pima.  Is it such a stretch to believe that they have also employed people who believe a traitor deserves to be raped?  I don't believe I've either said or implied anything about the number of people, large or otherwise, who fit into either category. 

I have no doubt you know Bullet better than I do.  I'm just reading the words he wrote.  How do you read them?




-- Edited by creaturely on Friday 17th of December 2010 03:18:29 PM

I am saying to say to a US Officer he implies or insinuates that a military member be RAPED is hurtful, rude and offensive.

To say that to a poster who served 21 yrs defending your rights and insuring you would never have to serve is even worse!

Just so I understand, let's imagine for a moment some other officer; perhaps not the best man in the world--someone more ordinary than Bullet.  Some lesser person, capable of implying that a military member should be raped.  Would it still be rude to say that he had done so?

Let's further imagine that I was someone with more itinerant children and less Christmas ham.  Imagine I had served 22 years defending your rights.  Would it still be offensive for me to object? even with my one extra year? 

Again, it seems to me that Bullet doesn't disagree with my interpretation, though we obviously disagree about other matters-- so I think this is mostly a nonissue.  But since you still object, I'll ask again:  how do you understand the words Bullet wrote?


-- Edited by creaturely on Friday 17th of December 2010 02:19:20 PM

-- Edited by creaturely on Friday 17th of December 2010 02:19:43 PM

-- Edited by creaturely on Friday 17th of December 2010 02:20:10 PM

Pima, the word "intimate" means to state indirectly.  One does not have to use a word to imply its meaning. 

I see, however, that you feel that I have misunderstood the implications of what Bullet has said.  I might note that Bullet does not seem to think so.  (He wrote: "You were correct that I made a comment like this.")

Perhaps you could explain to me what you think his words meant?

I did indeed interpret Bullet's words in that fashion-- and I think it is what the words say.  If he meant something else by his words, or if he mean to use other words than the words he used, he could say so-- or not, just as he chooses.

Creaturely,

I DO understand your feelings in this matter, and can appreciate how you would feel this is torture. As someone who has also undergone the military's Survival, Escape and Resistence training, and from my experience witnessing the standard operating procedures at the Military Disciplinary Barracks at Ft Leavenworth, I can't equate his solitary confinement as "torture".

I will say that it can be lonely. It can be mind-numbing. It can be depressing. And many military prisoners who undergo this treatment consider it one of the worst things they've had to deal with when they are admitted to the DB. But it is STANDARD OPs. My reply to them when they complain about it: "Guess you shouldn't have broken UCMJ law".

I can also see your point thatyou would expect PFC Manning to have similar rigths to a speedy trial as a civilian gets. I would then haveto remind you that he is a member of the military; his rigths are superceded by UCMJ. It's part of the package when he signed the dotted line to serve his country.

PFC Manning is being treated no differently than any other prisoner the Barrack's Commander would consider "at risk if allowed to be part of the General Prisoner Population". He IS getting special treatment; for his own safety and not for the sake of additional punishment.

My heart does not shed a tear for a foolish young man who broke UCMJ law and stole secrets off a government computer. He was made WELL AWARE of the consequences of these actions before he was even allowed to log in. And every time he logs in, it's say pretty much the same right on the log in screen and desk-top. He can not claim ignorance of the consequences here.

I would expect similar treatment if I were to do the same....

I agree the idea that it would be fine that Manning should be raped is over the top, even inflammatory-- but it wasn't my idea.  Or was the large amorous inmate meant to be there to alleviate Manning's solitude and keep him warm?

I understand that you feel that solitary confinement is not punishment.  I have cited one source my reasons for feeling differently, and could cite many more. 

How is it torture?

Take a police officer in the court system, he is placed on solitary to protect his life. It is not a punishment.

They need Manning alive, placing him in the inmate population risks his life.

Torture is not solitary confinement and only 1 hour of exercise.

PLUS, you owe an apology to Bullet for the RAPED comment. That was over the top and inflammatory.

I suppose I can see why you'd frame it that way-- but those aren't my feelings.  My feeling is that prolonged solitary confinement is being deliberately inflicted here upon a person who has been tried for no crime, not as a form of protection, but as a form of torture.  (My reasons for thinking so are here: http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/irrc-867-reyes.pdf)

I'm not a lawyer, and so my views of whether what Manning is alleged to have done could be prosecuted as either treason or espionage are amateur.  (My reading suggests that the answer to the former is "no", while the answer to the latter is probably not).  But even if he were found guilty of treason and espionage (in addition to the lesser charges he almost certainly will face) I would not advocate his torture.

Of course, perhaps the scenario that just happened to come to your mind when contemplating an appropriate punishment makes you feel very very sad for the mystery person in question, rather than "pleased". If that is the case, I retract my characterization of your feelings.

Noted, and you beat me to my own search.
No need to retract your characterization of me. Just as there is no need for me to tell you my characterization of your feelings (traitor's right's to a few hours exercise over soldier's right's not to be put in jeopardy by an idiot with an agenda.)

DEFINETLY think we should do something about the person who supplied him the information. Long nights in a cold cell shared with a large and amorous prison cell mate come to mind.

Since you believe Manning to be the person who supplied Assange with the information in question, I take it that it is he you are referring to here.  Indeed, if you are referring to someone else, then it is hard to know why you think Manning deserves even the treatment he is getting, much less the amorous nights you wish upon that someone.

Of course, perhaps the scenario that just happened to come to your mind when contemplating an appropriate punishment makes you feel very very sad for the mystery person in question, rather than "pleased".  If that is the case, I retract my characterization of your feelings.

Well, yes Bullet.  You have already clearly intimated that you would be pleased if Manning was raped.  What's 7 months solitary confinement without trial?

jazzy wrote:

---

Ron Paul, Republican-Libertarian, has defended Assange.   As have some Democrats and the city council of Berkeley.....weird, huh?

---

    I have heard people saying Assange should be nominated for the Nobel Price. Don''t think the Norwegians will touch him with a 10 foot pole for political reasons alone. Personally I think ex ambassador Joe Wilson is more worthy than some of the winners in recent years.

    Just my opinion for what its worth.