USAF Lt. Col: Bradley Manning has rights!

[Turtle]

Why'd you have to post that? I can't un-see it, you know. I mean, the text--ok, but the pictures?

Ok, so he's a sodomite.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. In this case, more than that (especially with me at the keyboard). Another picture that should be burned into your brain is his picture on his Facebook page. It's another thousand words, but can be condensed down to two - Pretty Boy.

I just find this hilarious from a social science perspective, where the military won't touch it even though it's at least clearly a portion of the motive, the press is scared to death of it, and on the few gay Web sites I've stumbled upon (strictly thanks to Google - don't even go there) where he is mentioned to be gay, they go absolutely ballistic in the comments section.

1: he's innocent until proven guilty;

Absolutely.

2: he's not charged with treason and therefore not eligible for the death sentence;

He's not yet charged with treason. That's a charge that can be added at any time.

3: his detention goes beyond merely making sure he's present at his trial and is, in fact, punitive in nature;

That it's punitive is an opinion. The fact is, he's being held held under Prevention of Injury (POI) watch. The fact is that there are others in that same brig and other jails who are being held under the same exact POI conditions.

4: this is a violation of his human, civil, and UCMJ rights.

But the evidence suggests otherwise. If Manning were being abused, or even suspected of being abused, all his lawer need do is make one call to the Navy's (or DoD's) Inspector General, which is independent by law and having immediate authority and power, a clear duty to investigate the allegations. Commanders and civilian military chiefs cannot overrule the IG's decisions to investigate, and the IG can have access to classified material at the highest levels. The IG can get access to the prisoner, get psychiatric experts to examine Manning, and interrogate any and all who are in charge of his imprisonment.

But what has Manning's lawyers done instead? He's gone to the liberal media and to, of all people, the UN and it's "special rapporteur" on torture, Manfred Nowak, to investigate the conditions under which Manning is being held. That should make it clear enough that Manning's condition is being maintained properly by professionals, and Coombs knows it, so he's got to do an end run in the media to put political pressure on the military to change the conditions. Otherwise, why not make that one call to the IG and get it all cleared up toot sweet?

Lots of regimes we would call tyrannical treated suspects of crimes lots better than Manning is being treated. Many were more like house arrest. Can we all agree to wait for a trial and a verdict before whatever else is done to him? That's how they do it in civilized countries. Remember when we were one?

What happens if he's released into the general population and he doesn't even survive 24 hours? It'll be, "the government killed him," even if he simply slipped and fell down a flight of stairs.

But, if you feel what is going on there is a violation of his human, civil and UCMJ rights, you can actually do something about it, something that Manning's lawyer doesn't know how to do. Call the DoD Inspector General (1-703-699-5638) and ask for an investigator and tell them you want to report abuse of authority and a possible violation of law. Get case numbers for your concerns about the mistreatment of Manning. If they don’t want to give you new case numbers because other cases have already been open, just ask for the information necessary to file a Freedom of Information Act request on the subject with their offices. They'll be happy to help.

 

[RLENT]

T,

Thanks for posting the links ..... interesting stuff.

First thought that comes to mind after reading the charge sheet is: it seems that they really don't know what he took - other than the stuff that had already come out, or that Wikileaks claimed to possess .....

IOW, it doesn't look like there was any way in place for them to track what was copied off the computer onto another data storage device - otherwise they would have charged him with it on the charge sheet.

 

[bugsysiegel]

Well said, Turtle.

 

[RLENT]

Yes. The pompous authoritarians, one or two with Napoleon complexes, who attempt to stifle intelligent, reasonable exchanges of ideas with macho, right wing extremist psycho babble. I am probably endangering myself simply by offering this loose definiton.

As along as you avoid dark, lonely places where you can be jumped, you're probably ok ...

These fellas tend to make alot of noise and blather, but unless you put yourself where there's no one around (so the deeds be concealed and hidden), that's all it tends to be .... unless they happen to have a crowd of like-minded 'tards at their back ... then they get a little more brave ..... as well as alot more stupid .....

I suspect you know who I mean.

I probably have a fairly good idea, yes .....

 

[RLENT]

I know the type. (sigh) Used to be one.

Ain't nothin' that gives one a finer appreciation of what something is (and what it is not) ... than to have actually been it ....

 

[Turtle]

T,

Thanks for posting the links ..... interesting stuff.

First thought that comes to mind after reading the charge sheet is: it seems that they really don't know what he took - other than the stuff that had already come out, or that Wikileaks claimed to possess .....

IOW, it doesn't look like there was any way in place for them to track what was copied off the computer onto another data storage device - otherwise they would have charged him with it on the charge sheet.

Not necessarily. Usually those Charge Sheets are pretty generic and don't get too specific, especially when it's classified information that would become public once it's on the Charge Sheet. They generally save the specifics for the court martial.

But in this case, you're right, they really don't know exactly what he took. Even Manning doesn't know what all he took, not really. There's simply too much of it for him to have gone through before he took it. But the fact that the military doesn't have total logging of all computer activity on secure, classified computers is just mind boggling. They should be able to tell which files were accessed, and how they were accessed, be it to read, write, copy or delete. And all IO operations should be logged in detail. Sheesh, you've been able to do that in Windows ever since Windows NT, before that with third party programs. It's even easier on UNIX based systems, since all user and IO activity is logged by default.

 

[Black Sheep]

Guess I'm late to the party today since most of the following has been completely discredited, but anyway...

I got a pretty good handle on your political beliefs by your stance on rights. No one whose stance on rights is as amorphous as yours is a conservative. Col. Kwiatkowski is.

That statement is pure nonsense. The rights of a soldier are different from those of civilian.

"The Dimmer" isn't a liberal label; it's a label given him by people who were far more conservative than he to differentiate him from his father, who, though not a conservative either, had more brain cells than his son.

Of course it's a liberal label. Who do you think you're kidding?

I was in the military, and was taught during basic training how we didn't forfeit any rights, and how the Bill of Rights still applies. There was a specific class taught on that during basic. Also covered were the legality of orders. Were you sick that day of basic?

When I was in basic training they didn't have "that day" or that class. Maybe some of the younger vets on the site remember taking it. My BS alarm is going off.

The reason Manning is there is because he embarrassed the government by revealing what *******es they've been.

Unbelievable.....especially coming from somebody who claims to have been in the military.

 

[LDB]

Such hand wringing over some lousy sheets. Maybe he doesn't have sheets so he can't hang himself with them. Does he have a belt or shoe laces? I bet not. HOW DARE THEY NOT GIVE HIM LACES FOR HIS SHOES!!! Call the Pentagon! Call the newspapers! Call your Congressman! GIVE THIS MAN HIS SHOELACES!

 

[witness23]

Amazing! After 88 posts, some, still just don't get it.

 

[LDB]

My thoughts exactly.

 

[witness23]

This applies to this thread also. An excerpt from what I posted in another thread. Our standards have to be held up and followed, if not then we are no better than a third world country.

Gen. (ret.) Hugh Shelton was writing about "Enemy Combatants" but the same standards, values, core beliefs hold true for American citizens that are awaiting a trial.

I am not defending Manning, I do not condone his actions, I want to see him tried and sentenced as soon as possible. I want to see our UCMJ upheld with honor and I want to see our system of laws followed consistently.

From, Without Hesitation Gen. (ret.) Hugh Shelton

Intelligence can no longer be manipulated to justify an agenda. Prisoner abuse and withholding of due process can no longer be tolerated.

General Dave Patraeus was working as my executive officer when I required all the Joint Chiefs to read Dereliction of Duty, and from the way he is leading his own troops, it is obvious to me that he took those words to heart. Here’s a letter he sent them when the issue of “questionable” interrogation techniques was exposed, and it’s something we should all take to heart.

What sets us apart from our enemies in this fight….is how we behave. In everything we do, we must observe the standards and values that dictate that we treat noncombatants and detainees with dignity and respect….Some may argue that we would be more effective if we sanctioned torture or other expedient methods to obtain information from the enemy. They would be wrong.
Beyond the basic fact that such actions are illegal, history shows that they also are frequently neither useful nor necessary. Certainly, extreme physical action can make someone “talk”; however, what the individual says may be of questionable value. In fact, our experience in applying the interrogation standards laid out in the Army Field Manual (2-22.3) on Human Intelligence Collector Operations that was published last year shows that the techniques in the manual work effectively and humanely in eliciting information from detainees.

The years ahead present some significant challenges to America. They will test more than our armed forces; they will test America’s mettle, our values, our will, our ability to persevere in the face of these global threats – and our willingness to continue to work together to harness the power of an international effort to face these threats to our way of life.
Perhaps my greatest concern is that we hold fast to maintaining the incredibly high standards that have made us the greatest country in the world. In doing so, I am confident that through hard work and diligence, we will meet any challenge and triumph over any enemy or obstacle in our path.

 

[RLENT]

My thoughts exactly.

I believe it may have been exactly your thoughts (among others) that he was referring to .....

 

[witness23]

I believe it may have been exactly your thoughts (among others) that he was referring to .....

Oh I know what he was referring to, it just wasn't worth to directly acknowledge him.

 

[AMonger]

But the evidence suggests otherwise. If Manning were being abused, or even suspected of being abused, all his lawer need do is make one call to the Navy's (or DoD's) Inspector General, which is independent by law and having immediate authority and power, a clear duty to investigate the allegations. Commanders and civilian military chiefs cannot overrule the IG's decisions to investigate, and the IG can have access to classified material at the highest levels. The IG can get access to the prisoner, get psychiatric experts to examine Manning, and interrogate any and all who are in charge of his imprisonment.

But, if you feel what is going on there is a violation of his human, civil and UCMJ rights, you can actually do something about it, something that Manning's lawyer doesn't know how to do. Call the DoD Inspector General (1-703-699-5638) and ask for an investigator and tell them you want to report abuse of authority and a possible violation of law. Get case numbers for your concerns about the mistreatment of Manning. If they don’t want to give you new case numbers because other cases have already been open, just ask for the information necessary to file a Freedom of Information Act request on the subject with their offices. They'll be happy to help.

This isn't a normal case. This entire case is because the leaked material humiliated the US gummint, and the gummint will do anything to hammer anybody they feel is responsible.

There was a political cartoon just after the leaks went public. It showed a US diplomat getting off a plane, being greeted by some foreign official. He says, "So, my breath stinks and I throw like a girl, huh?

The gummint has been shown to be the emperor parading around in no clothes, and now they're going to hammer whoever they can in retaliation.

Manning is being maltreated because that's the way the gummint wants it. It would be foolish to appeal to the gummint to stop doing wrong that they fully intend to do.

 

[AMonger]

That statement is pure nonsense. The rights of a soldier are different from those of civilian.

Addressed below.

Of course it's a liberal label. Who do you think you're kidding?

Kidding no one. For it to be a liberal label, that would imply that it's coined and used by one relatively liberal perjoratively against someone relatively conservative. This wasn't the case. I heard the term used by someone far more conservative than Bush, who wasn't particularly conservative, and it was used to differentiate Bush Sr. from his intellectually deficient son. That means it wasn't, at least when I found it, a liberal label.

When I was in basic training they didn't have "that day" or that class. Maybe some of the younger vets on the site remember taking it. My BS alarm is going off.

You need your alarm adjusted. Is there an hour meter on it? Does it need periodic PM, like an APU? Is there a wire you could jiggle?

That was, aamof, one of the first classes we had in basic training. And we actually argued with the instructor, because we believed that we had signed away some rights, and he insisted--repeatedly--that we hadn't, that the only restrictions were a matter of timing, degree, and manner i.e. you can't participate in an anti-war demonstration in uniform, or while on duty, or connect your actions to your rank or service.

Here's an article written on the issue:
Military Personnel Have Free Speech Rights | NewsReal Blog

Do military servicemen and women have a First Amendment right to speak out on matters of public policy? That issue has been raised in a recent incident involving Marine Corps Sergeant Gary Stein. It’s an increasingly important question because new social media networking tools have empowered each and every individual with the tools of mass communication. As such, Sergeant Stein’s case is hardly unique. Nor will it be the last.​

Indeed, empowered with new 21st century communication technologies, more and more military members are speaking out and writing about contentious issues. They are doing so, moreover, in ways that conflict with the military’s hierarchical nature and the military’s increasingly antiquated desire to command and control its personnel.​

In the case of Sergeant Stein, he was “counseled” by his military superiors after creating a Facebook page for Armed Forces Tea Party Patriots and after posting online comments critical of President Obama’s healthcare plan. The sergeant’s entrepreneurial publishing efforts caught the attention of his chain of command, and not, apparently, in a good way. Indeed, Sergeant Stein was warned that by exercising his free speech rights, he may be running afoul of Defense Department directives that limit and circumscribe a military member’s political activities.
The sergeant took down his Facebook page and contacted independent attorneys and the American Civil Liberties Union, all of whom told him he had done nothing wrong. Military service, he was told, does not mean that a service member forfeits his First Amendment right. It simply means that a military member must exercise his free speech rights in his own spare time and in his capacity as a private citizen.
“There are restrictions on time, place and manner,” military attorney and former Marine Patrick Callahan told the San Diego Union-Tribune. “For instance, service members can’t go to political rallies in uniform. The issue becomes whether somebody is doing it in their professional capacity.”
That’s exactly right. And that’s why Stein has since republished his Facebook page. Yet there are other disturbing incidents of military officials trying to censor and punish our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who design to exercise their First Amendment right to free speech. These military officials should heed the counsel of former Navy Secretary James Webb, who in 1978 wrote:

“A citizen does not give up his First Amendment right to free speech when he puts on a military uniform, with small exceptions.”


​

Webb, of course, is an attorney and a highly decorated Marine Corps veteran of the Vietnam War. As such, he has a deep appreciation for the importance of robust public-policy debates which allow for the views and perspectives of our military servicemen and women.
Want some more?

In the past, some legal analysts contended that those in the military receive a level of constitutional protection that is inferior to that afforded to civilians. However, in United States v. Stuckey, 10 M.J. 347 (1981), the Court of Military Appeals (now called the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Services) held that "the BILL OF RIGHTS applies with full force to men and women in the military service. …"
Congress, under its authority to regulate the armed forces, generally determines the due process and EQUAL PROTECTION rights of service personnel, and most courts defer to congressional authority in this area. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that Congress must heed the Constitution when it enacts legislation that concerns the military.


The article does list some exceptions to this, for example, that officers have far less latitude to criticize government officials and policies than do enlisted personnel. Some exceptions exist for enlisted personnel, too, but then again, some exceptions have always been recognized for civilians, have they not?

 

[Turtle]

This isn't a normal case. This entire case is because the leaked material humiliated the US gummint, and the gummint will do anything to hammer anybody they feel is responsible.

Whatever "normal" means, I'm not sure, but it's certainly not routine and common for someone to be charged with stealing classified materials, I'll grant you that. And, oh, by the way, that's what this entire case is about.

There was a political cartoon just after the leaks went public. It showed a US diplomat getting off a plane, being greeted by some foreign official. He says, "So, my breath stinks and I throw like a girl, huh?

Yeah, saw it. There are a lot of political cartoons about the subject.

The gummint has been shown to be the emperor parading around in no clothes, and now they're going to hammer whoever they can in retaliation.

That's true, and it is an expected and understandable response. Most people, including you I suspect, would react the same towards anyone who did the same.

How do you pronounce "gummint"?

Manning is being maltreated because that's the way the gummint wants it. It would be foolish to appeal to the gummint to stop doing wrong that they fully intend to do.

Is it your assertion that the entire government, and everybody in it all levels, are involved in this maltreatment conspiracy? And, since it's where Manning's lawyer went to, that it requires an outside agency such as the UN to correct this situation?

 

[jaminjim]

That was, aamof, one of the first classes we had in basic training. And we actually argued with the instructor, because we believed that we had signed away some rights, and he insisted--repeatedly--that we hadn't, that the only restrictions were a matter of timing, degree, and manner i.e. you can't participate in an anti-war demonstration in uniform, or while on duty, or connect your actions to your rank or service.

Holy smokes! What branch of service were you in? What time frame did you serve? When I was in, trying to argue with an instructor would have resulted in a DI removing his Campaign Hat and doing a Kato (Goldfinger) like removal of your head.

 

[layoutshooter]

Holy smokes! What branch of service were you in? What time frame did you serve? When I was in, trying to argue with an instructor would have resulted in a DI removing his Campaign Hat and doing a Kato (Goldfinger) like removal of your head.

Same when I was in. I did, ONCE, not follow instructions on a range. We were training on 3 shot bursts and my buddy I an fired single rounds. Saw no need to waste ammo since we "killed" all of our assigned targets. WELL, it DID cost us 50 push ups each and a smile out of our instructor. He understood that saving those 20 or 30 rounds, IN REAL COMBAT, would have been a GOOD thing since in times of short supply we would still be effective.

I had a LOT of respect for our head DI. 3 tours in 'Nam, 2 Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star for Valor. He was career RA. Some of the others? Not so good. Many were ER's on summer duty.

 

[greg334]

This is the new military, it is where we allow people to speak up, disobey orders and think about their action.

It is a step backwards in my eyes.

This is social engineering of the military and is part of the downfall of the country.

How can citizens respect people who start questioning orders or policies that are created to protect the country?

Maybe this is the underlying issue with the public at large on the subject of the military and why they don't think the military is all that important?

 

[layoutshooter]

This is the new military, it is where we allow people to speak up, disobey orders and think about their action.

It is a step backwards in my eyes.

This is social engineering of the military and is part of the downfall of the country.

How can citizens respect people who start questioning orders or policies that are created to protect the country?

Maybe this is the underlying issue with the public at large on the subject of the military and why they don't think the military is all that important?

We were ALWAYS able to speak up when I was in the military. There were proper times/places and chains in which to do so. We were ENCOURAGED to THINK, not just react. LEGAL orders HAD to be obeyed, ILLEGAL orders were to be fought.

What you could NOT do was just run around, smarting off, show disrespect etc. There was a strict "cast" system and as long as you stayed within the "rules and norms" you had great latitude to think and contribute. There is NO advancement without opposing ideas. Even a lowly private is capable of coming up with an idea that is better than the general's. The trick is learning HOW to tell the general.