I'm fairly certain that was one of the flurry of things he did the first day.
I'm not happy about the indefinite detention but I just don't feel he's responsible for that.
Obama has the power to end indefinite detention with the stroke of a pen, as an executive order.
For that reason I feel he's responsible.
He could even make it a super top secret order, or clarify to mean "unless approved by the DOJ" and order them to never approve it if he needed political cover.
No he doesn't. Haven't we already talked about this? I'm pretty sure we already talked about this.
The policy of indefinite detention can be ended by the DOJ and the Military Tomorrow. With a presidential order. That is not arguable.
The question of where would you send the Gitmo prisoners is arguable.
Oh your talking about about indefinite detention as in future captures. I'm pretty sure that also ended on his first day.
See Bradley Manning.
Looks to me like they are making preparations to send him to trial. Though his holding hasn't been perfect.
So if an organization that is not a sovereign country wants to blow us up and they don't wear uniforms, we have to try and arrest them before we kill them?
If terrorist organizations issued a formal declaration of war and wore uniforms, would it be okay to use drones then or are we only allowed to use purely military force (i.e. skip the "try and arrest" phase) against sovereign nations?
Or is it that we shouldn't be allowed to use drones against American citizens in terrorist organizations?
And we can disagree on that, because I personally don't think we would have gotten a single conviction and the cost would have been ever getting anything else done.
That's better than letting torturers off without a fight. That only emboldens the bastards and there will be a next time.
edit: This is especially galling since his whole theme while campaigning was "change".
Change is ending Torture and doing his best to get the people out of there, which to a very limited degree he succeeded to. Anyone who must be tried is still in there because of congress but anyone easily proven to have no evidence whatsoever was released in '09.
Nowhere near enough change for my liking. He's only delayed it, not ended the prospect that war criminals* won't be prosecuted. He did the least, which is not a good example for a leader who believes in the law or being moral. The prisoners being released was a good start but many prisoners died. Where's their justice? So what if no evidence was released in '09. He should have formed a task force that investigated the incident with a fine toothyed comb. He's got the Department of Justice on his speed dial.
I'd have liked to have persecuted these people but realistically, considering how crazy the Right has gotten and remembering how big a chunk of America supports torture do you think that would have ended well?
It would be the Democratic party's job to change their minds. They're not powerless against Republicans. The right need to be fought back, especially on important issues like this otherwise they win. At least it would have ended. All he's done is let them continue with a low profile under the next torture happy president gets elected then we'll be right where we started.
* Lyndy England's little group was too little, too late. They got off easily, as well. Had they done that a few decades ago they'd have been hanged IIRC
It would be very situational--which, I guess, is true today as well. Lots--I mean, very large numbers, anyway--of Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army POWs ended up being tortured by Americans working in cooperation with the South Vietnamese armed forces or by themselves. Phoenix Program, anyone? Hell, even unsanctioned torture could easily be excused as being sanctioned through some ultimately ineffectual terror initiative or another to break the enemy's will to fight.
To be fair, this was hardly unique to the United States. But people who go all "One True Scotsman" on the Armed Forces are deluding themselves more than a little bit, depending on the situation. "My word, the army I was in would have never stood for that." Yeah, gramps, because in the Pacific, they were cutting ears and heads off Japanese POWs to dry them out into knicknacks and hilarious skull beverage holders, or to win a poster of some 40s pinup on an army radio show. And if a few surrendered prisoners got shot because of a tough campaign, who cares? Not that many to start with. "Roughing prisoners up" in such a way that a great many people would call torture today wasn't unheard of.
Once again, not unique to the United States then either. The Japanese used "enhanced interrogation techniques", among other horrible things, on POWs. Germany experimented on their Soviet POWs.
The percentage of Texans with health insurance will increase to 91 percent - up from 74 percent today - after the national health care law takes effect in 2014, the state's Medicaid director told lawmakers Monday.
He hasn't lifted a finger to help Bradley Manning IIRC. So while he may have stopped officially torturing prisoners, he's looking the other way when he feels like it.
Why would he? Bradley Manning (allegedly) committed a pretty serious crime. The idea that the President of the United States would "help out" a guy who violated his oath and decided to steal and then broadcast gigabytes of current classified information including both diplomatic, military and security information to the world is kind of crazy.
Theoretically could have ordered the end to his total solitary confinement and generally sped up the process towards getting him court martialed. Which is an insanely micro-managerial thing to do. I think he was treated shittily, but I tend to think that was not a Presidential order and he had more important things to do.
Obama needn't get personally involved. Just tell the right people to stick their noses in to make sure he isn't being tortured, speed up his trial if possible and nail any asshole who was responsible for treating Manning like he was an Enemy Combatant. This isn't a big thing here.
0
Options
SerukoFerocious Kittenof The Farthest NorthRegistered Userregular
I'm fairly certain that was one of the flurry of things he did the first day.
I'm not happy about the indefinite detention but I just don't feel he's responsible for that.
Obama has the power to end indefinite detention with the stroke of a pen, as an executive order.
For that reason I feel he's responsible.
He could even make it a super top secret order, or clarify to mean "unless approved by the DOJ" and order them to never approve it if he needed political cover.
No he doesn't. Haven't we already talked about this? I'm pretty sure we already talked about this.
The policy of indefinite detention can be ended by the DOJ and the Military Tomorrow. With a presidential order. That is not arguable.
The question of where would you send the Gitmo prisoners is arguable.
Oh your talking about about indefinite detention as in future captures. I'm pretty sure that also ended on his first day.
I'm fairly certain that was one of the flurry of things he did the first day.
I'm not happy about the indefinite detention but I just don't feel he's responsible for that.
Obama has the power to end indefinite detention with the stroke of a pen, as an executive order.
For that reason I feel he's responsible.
He could even make it a super top secret order, or clarify to mean "unless approved by the DOJ" and order them to never approve it if he needed political cover.
No he doesn't. Haven't we already talked about this? I'm pretty sure we already talked about this.
The policy of indefinite detention can be ended by the DOJ and the Military Tomorrow. With a presidential order. That is not arguable.
The question of where would you send the Gitmo prisoners is arguable.
Oh your talking about about indefinite detention as in future captures. I'm pretty sure that also ended on his first day.
See Bradley Manning.
Looks to me like they are making preparations to send him to trial. Though his holding hasn't been perfect.
May 2010 - April 2011 Before he was given the opportunity to plead his case. How can you even argue that?
Regardless of your argument, until April 2011 his detention was indefinite. Ergo Indefinite Detention has not been ended by the Obama Administration.
Seruko on
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
The percentage of Texans with health insurance will increase to 91 percent - up from 74 percent today - after the national health care law takes effect in 2014, the state's Medicaid director told lawmakers Monday.
He hasn't lifted a finger to help Bradley Manning IIRC. So while he may have stopped officially torturing prisoners, he's looking the other way when he feels like it.
Why would he? Bradley Manning (allegedly) committed a pretty serious crime. The idea that the President of the United States would "help out" a guy who violated his oath and decided to steal and then broadcast gigabytes of current classified information including both diplomatic, military and security information to the world is kind of crazy.
Theoretically could have ordered the end to his total solitary confinement and generally sped up the process towards getting him court martialed. Which is an insanely micro-managerial thing to do. I think he was treated shittily, but I tend to think that was not a Presidential order and he had more important things to do.
Obama needn't get personally involved. Just tell the right people to stick their noses in to make sure he isn't being tortured, speed up his trial if possible and nail any asshole who was responsible for treating Manning like he was an Enemy Combatant. This isn't a big thing here.
According to Wiki:
Detention at Marine Corps Base Quantico
On July 29, 2010, Manning was moved from Kuwait to the Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia, and classified as a "maximum custody detainee" held under a "Prevention of Injury" assignment until April 2011. At Quantico he was detained in a 6 x 12 ft cell, with no window, furnished with a bed, toilet and sink, and with meals taken in his cell. According to The Washington Post, the facility had 30 cells built in a U shape, and although the detainees could talk to one another, they were unable to see each other, according to his lawyer, David Coombs, a former military attorney and member of the United States Army Reserve. Coombs said in December 2010 that the guards were professional, and had not tried to bully, harass, or embarrass Manning. He was allowed outside his cell to walk for up to one hour a day, shackled. There was access to television for limited periods when it was placed in the corridor outside his cell. He was allowed to keep one book and one magazine in his cell—according to Leigh and Harding, he requested Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (1781)—but otherwise no writing materials, though access to them was given during allotted times. He was shackled during visits.[37]
A Prevention of Injury order is one stop short of suicide watch. It entails checks by guards every five minutes, and no sleeping during the day. His lawyer said he was not allowed to sleep between 5 am (7 am at weekends) and 8 pm, and if he tried to, was made to stand or sit up. He was required to remain visible at all times, including at night, which entailed no access to sheets, no pillow except one built into his mattress, and a blanket designed not to be shredded. Until March 2011 he was required to sleep in boxer shorts, and had experienced chafing of the skin from the heavy blanket.[37] On March 2, he was told that an Article 138 complaint filed in January by his lawyer—asking that he be removed from maximum custody and prevention-of-injury watch—had been denied. His lawyer said Manning subsequently joked to the guards that, if he wanted to harm himself, he could do so "with the elastic waistband of his underwear or with his flip-flops." This resulted in him being required to sleep without clothing and present himself naked outside his cell for morning inspection, which his lawyer described as ritual humiliation, though from around March 10 onwards he was given a wrap-around smock with Velcro fasteners to sleep in. In response to the incident, the brig psychiatrist classified him as at low risk of suicide
I'm fairly certain that was one of the flurry of things he did the first day.
I'm not happy about the indefinite detention but I just don't feel he's responsible for that.
Obama has the power to end indefinite detention with the stroke of a pen, as an executive order.
For that reason I feel he's responsible.
He could even make it a super top secret order, or clarify to mean "unless approved by the DOJ" and order them to never approve it if he needed political cover.
No he doesn't. Haven't we already talked about this? I'm pretty sure we already talked about this.
The policy of indefinite detention can be ended by the DOJ and the Military Tomorrow. With a presidential order. That is not arguable.
The question of where would you send the Gitmo prisoners is arguable.
Oh your talking about about indefinite detention as in future captures. I'm pretty sure that also ended on his first day.
I'm fairly certain that was one of the flurry of things he did the first day.
I'm not happy about the indefinite detention but I just don't feel he's responsible for that.
Obama has the power to end indefinite detention with the stroke of a pen, as an executive order.
For that reason I feel he's responsible.
He could even make it a super top secret order, or clarify to mean "unless approved by the DOJ" and order them to never approve it if he needed political cover.
No he doesn't. Haven't we already talked about this? I'm pretty sure we already talked about this.
The policy of indefinite detention can be ended by the DOJ and the Military Tomorrow. With a presidential order. That is not arguable.
The question of where would you send the Gitmo prisoners is arguable.
Oh your talking about about indefinite detention as in future captures. I'm pretty sure that also ended on his first day.
See Bradley Manning.
Looks to me like they are making preparations to send him to trial. Though his holding hasn't been perfect.
May 2010 - April 2011 Before he was given the opportunity to plead his case. How can you even argue that?
Well, were arguing whether indefinite Detention, or being held without ever receiving a trial, is still happening and this doesn't seem to be the case here. So like that I guess.
I do feel that might have violated his 6th amendment rights and wouldn't be surprised if he sued for that.
0
Options
SerukoFerocious Kittenof The Farthest NorthRegistered Userregular
Well, were arguing whether indefinite Detention, or being held without ever receiving a trial, is still happening and this doesn't seem to be the case here. So like that I guess.
I do feel that might have violated his 6th amendment rights and wouldn't be surprised if he sued for that.
I am confused I read you to be saying "holding someone without trial for 11 months is okay, because eventually we got around to giving them their day in court."
Indefinate Detention does not mean Detaining someone forever. It means Detaining someone until no definite future point. Edit "Beyond reasonable limits, well codified in law"
Seruko on
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
Well, were arguing whether indefinite Detention, or being held without ever receiving a trial, is still happening and this doesn't seem to be the case here. So like that I guess.
I do feel that might have violated his 6th amendment rights and wouldn't be surprised if he sued for that.
I am confused I read you to be saying "holding someone without trial for 11 months is okay, because eventually we got around to giving them their day in court."
Indefinate Detention does not mean Detaining someone forever. It means Detaining someone until no definite future point.
You are confused. I just said that holding him might have been a violation of his 6th amendment rights. That's no small problem. As to whether its comparable to Guantanemo and other incidents I don't know but lean towards disagree. I'd need to see why he was held that long. It's rare but people bave been held that long before do to difficulties with prosecution.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I'm pretty sure people who get arrested have rather long wait times before trial. I'm not defending that, but people need to slow thrusters a bit here.
The percentage of Texans with health insurance will increase to 91 percent - up from 74 percent today - after the national health care law takes effect in 2014, the state's Medicaid director told lawmakers Monday.
He hasn't lifted a finger to help Bradley Manning IIRC. So while he may have stopped officially torturing prisoners, he's looking the other way when he feels like it.
Why would he? Bradley Manning (allegedly) committed a pretty serious crime. The idea that the President of the United States would "help out" a guy who violated his oath and decided to steal and then broadcast gigabytes of current classified information including both diplomatic, military and security information to the world is kind of crazy.
Theoretically could have ordered the end to his total solitary confinement and generally sped up the process towards getting him court martialed. Which is an insanely micro-managerial thing to do. I think he was treated shittily, but I tend to think that was not a Presidential order and he had more important things to do.
Obama needn't get personally involved. Just tell the right people to stick their noses in to make sure he isn't being tortured, speed up his trial if possible and nail any asshole who was responsible for treating Manning like he was an Enemy Combatant. This isn't a big thing here.
According to Wiki:
Detention at Marine Corps Base Quantico
On July 29, 2010, Manning was moved from Kuwait to the Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia, and classified as a "maximum custody detainee" held under a "Prevention of Injury" assignment until April 2011. At Quantico he was detained in a 6 x 12 ft cell, with no window, furnished with a bed, toilet and sink, and with meals taken in his cell. According to The Washington Post, the facility had 30 cells built in a U shape, and although the detainees could talk to one another, they were unable to see each other, according to his lawyer, David Coombs, a former military attorney and member of the United States Army Reserve. Coombs said in December 2010 that the guards were professional, and had not tried to bully, harass, or embarrass Manning. He was allowed outside his cell to walk for up to one hour a day, shackled. There was access to television for limited periods when it was placed in the corridor outside his cell. He was allowed to keep one book and one magazine in his cell—according to Leigh and Harding, he requested Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (1781)—but otherwise no writing materials, though access to them was given during allotted times. He was shackled during visits.[37]
A Prevention of Injury order is one stop short of suicide watch. It entails checks by guards every five minutes, and no sleeping during the day. His lawyer said he was not allowed to sleep between 5 am (7 am at weekends) and 8 pm, and if he tried to, was made to stand or sit up. He was required to remain visible at all times, including at night, which entailed no access to sheets, no pillow except one built into his mattress, and a blanket designed not to be shredded. Until March 2011 he was required to sleep in boxer shorts, and had experienced chafing of the skin from the heavy blanket.[37] On March 2, he was told that an Article 138 complaint filed in January by his lawyer—asking that he be removed from maximum custody and prevention-of-injury watch—had been denied. His lawyer said Manning subsequently joked to the guards that, if he wanted to harm himself, he could do so "with the elastic waistband of his underwear or with his flip-flops." This resulted in him being required to sleep without clothing and present himself naked outside his cell for morning inspection, which his lawyer described as ritual humiliation, though from around March 10 onwards he was given a wrap-around smock with Velcro fasteners to sleep in. In response to the incident, the brig psychiatrist classified him as at low risk of suicide
So, some bad treatment, but hardly GITMO.
So what if he isn't being tortured to death? They shouldn't do that. And any guard who does mistreat him should be reprimanded harshly.
I'm pretty sure people who get arrested have rather long wait times before trial. I'm not defending that, but people need to slow thrusters a bit here.
That's not a big concern. The bigger priority is that he's not mistreated by his jailers.
edit: That said, indefinite detection should not be on the table for punishing Manning or anyone else. At least without being sentenced first.
Harry Dresden on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
The percentage of Texans with health insurance will increase to 91 percent - up from 74 percent today - after the national health care law takes effect in 2014, the state's Medicaid director told lawmakers Monday.
He hasn't lifted a finger to help Bradley Manning IIRC. So while he may have stopped officially torturing prisoners, he's looking the other way when he feels like it.
Why would he? Bradley Manning (allegedly) committed a pretty serious crime. The idea that the President of the United States would "help out" a guy who violated his oath and decided to steal and then broadcast gigabytes of current classified information including both diplomatic, military and security information to the world is kind of crazy.
Theoretically could have ordered the end to his total solitary confinement and generally sped up the process towards getting him court martialed. Which is an insanely micro-managerial thing to do. I think he was treated shittily, but I tend to think that was not a Presidential order and he had more important things to do.
Obama needn't get personally involved. Just tell the right people to stick their noses in to make sure he isn't being tortured, speed up his trial if possible and nail any asshole who was responsible for treating Manning like he was an Enemy Combatant. This isn't a big thing here.
According to Wiki:
Detention at Marine Corps Base Quantico
On July 29, 2010, Manning was moved from Kuwait to the Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia, and classified as a "maximum custody detainee" held under a "Prevention of Injury" assignment until April 2011. At Quantico he was detained in a 6 x 12 ft cell, with no window, furnished with a bed, toilet and sink, and with meals taken in his cell. According to The Washington Post, the facility had 30 cells built in a U shape, and although the detainees could talk to one another, they were unable to see each other, according to his lawyer, David Coombs, a former military attorney and member of the United States Army Reserve. Coombs said in December 2010 that the guards were professional, and had not tried to bully, harass, or embarrass Manning. He was allowed outside his cell to walk for up to one hour a day, shackled. There was access to television for limited periods when it was placed in the corridor outside his cell. He was allowed to keep one book and one magazine in his cell—according to Leigh and Harding, he requested Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (1781)—but otherwise no writing materials, though access to them was given during allotted times. He was shackled during visits.[37]
A Prevention of Injury order is one stop short of suicide watch. It entails checks by guards every five minutes, and no sleeping during the day. His lawyer said he was not allowed to sleep between 5 am (7 am at weekends) and 8 pm, and if he tried to, was made to stand or sit up. He was required to remain visible at all times, including at night, which entailed no access to sheets, no pillow except one built into his mattress, and a blanket designed not to be shredded. Until March 2011 he was required to sleep in boxer shorts, and had experienced chafing of the skin from the heavy blanket.[37] On March 2, he was told that an Article 138 complaint filed in January by his lawyer—asking that he be removed from maximum custody and prevention-of-injury watch—had been denied. His lawyer said Manning subsequently joked to the guards that, if he wanted to harm himself, he could do so "with the elastic waistband of his underwear or with his flip-flops." This resulted in him being required to sleep without clothing and present himself naked outside his cell for morning inspection, which his lawyer described as ritual humiliation, though from around March 10 onwards he was given a wrap-around smock with Velcro fasteners to sleep in. In response to the incident, the brig psychiatrist classified him as at low risk of suicide
So, some bad treatment, but hardly GITMO.
So what if he isn't being tortured to death? They shouldn't do that. And any guard who does mistreat him should be reprimanded harshly.
I agree. I'm not defending it, but he's hardly being beaten and waterboarded and tortured for the Cheif of Staff's amusement. To me it sounds like he was being a dick and overzealous guards decided that you fight dicks with dicks.
The guards should be reprimanded, as should any supervisor who okay'd it.
But just because a thing is bad doesn't make it the worst thing ever. Perspective.
0
Options
SerukoFerocious Kittenof The Farthest NorthRegistered Userregular
I'm pretty sure people who get arrested have rather long wait times before trial. I'm not defending that, but people need to slow thrusters a bit here.
That's not a big concern. The bigger priority is that he's not mistreated by his jailers.
It's a fundamental concern under the Constitution of the United States. The same thing for Jose Padilla who was held with out charge for years. Same practices. Different president.
EDIT: For instance any state in the Union could not do this. You'd be out in something like 90 days.
Seruko on
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
The percentage of Texans with health insurance will increase to 91 percent - up from 74 percent today - after the national health care law takes effect in 2014, the state's Medicaid director told lawmakers Monday.
He hasn't lifted a finger to help Bradley Manning IIRC. So while he may have stopped officially torturing prisoners, he's looking the other way when he feels like it.
Why would he? Bradley Manning (allegedly) committed a pretty serious crime. The idea that the President of the United States would "help out" a guy who violated his oath and decided to steal and then broadcast gigabytes of current classified information including both diplomatic, military and security information to the world is kind of crazy.
Theoretically could have ordered the end to his total solitary confinement and generally sped up the process towards getting him court martialed. Which is an insanely micro-managerial thing to do. I think he was treated shittily, but I tend to think that was not a Presidential order and he had more important things to do.
Obama needn't get personally involved. Just tell the right people to stick their noses in to make sure he isn't being tortured, speed up his trial if possible and nail any asshole who was responsible for treating Manning like he was an Enemy Combatant. This isn't a big thing here.
According to Wiki:
Detention at Marine Corps Base Quantico
On July 29, 2010, Manning was moved from Kuwait to the Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia, and classified as a "maximum custody detainee" held under a "Prevention of Injury" assignment until April 2011. At Quantico he was detained in a 6 x 12 ft cell, with no window, furnished with a bed, toilet and sink, and with meals taken in his cell. According to The Washington Post, the facility had 30 cells built in a U shape, and although the detainees could talk to one another, they were unable to see each other, according to his lawyer, David Coombs, a former military attorney and member of the United States Army Reserve. Coombs said in December 2010 that the guards were professional, and had not tried to bully, harass, or embarrass Manning. He was allowed outside his cell to walk for up to one hour a day, shackled. There was access to television for limited periods when it was placed in the corridor outside his cell. He was allowed to keep one book and one magazine in his cell—according to Leigh and Harding, he requested Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (1781)—but otherwise no writing materials, though access to them was given during allotted times. He was shackled during visits.[37]
A Prevention of Injury order is one stop short of suicide watch. It entails checks by guards every five minutes, and no sleeping during the day. His lawyer said he was not allowed to sleep between 5 am (7 am at weekends) and 8 pm, and if he tried to, was made to stand or sit up. He was required to remain visible at all times, including at night, which entailed no access to sheets, no pillow except one built into his mattress, and a blanket designed not to be shredded. Until March 2011 he was required to sleep in boxer shorts, and had experienced chafing of the skin from the heavy blanket.[37] On March 2, he was told that an Article 138 complaint filed in January by his lawyer—asking that he be removed from maximum custody and prevention-of-injury watch—had been denied. His lawyer said Manning subsequently joked to the guards that, if he wanted to harm himself, he could do so "with the elastic waistband of his underwear or with his flip-flops." This resulted in him being required to sleep without clothing and present himself naked outside his cell for morning inspection, which his lawyer described as ritual humiliation, though from around March 10 onwards he was given a wrap-around smock with Velcro fasteners to sleep in. In response to the incident, the brig psychiatrist classified him as at low risk of suicide
So, some bad treatment, but hardly GITMO.
So what if he isn't being tortured to death? They shouldn't do that. And any guard who does mistreat him should be reprimanded harshly.
I agree. I'm not defending it, but he's hardly being beaten and waterboarded and tortured for the Cheif of Staff's amusement. To me it sounds like he was being a dick and overzealous guards decided that you fight dicks with dicks.
The guards should be reprimanded, as should any supervisor who okay'd it.
But just because a thing is bad doesn't make it the worst thing ever. Perspective.
It's not the worst thing ever. But I loathe when authority is being abused under any circumstance.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
The percentage of Texans with health insurance will increase to 91 percent - up from 74 percent today - after the national health care law takes effect in 2014, the state's Medicaid director told lawmakers Monday.
He hasn't lifted a finger to help Bradley Manning IIRC. So while he may have stopped officially torturing prisoners, he's looking the other way when he feels like it.
Why would he? Bradley Manning (allegedly) committed a pretty serious crime. The idea that the President of the United States would "help out" a guy who violated his oath and decided to steal and then broadcast gigabytes of current classified information including both diplomatic, military and security information to the world is kind of crazy.
Theoretically could have ordered the end to his total solitary confinement and generally sped up the process towards getting him court martialed. Which is an insanely micro-managerial thing to do. I think he was treated shittily, but I tend to think that was not a Presidential order and he had more important things to do.
Obama needn't get personally involved. Just tell the right people to stick their noses in to make sure he isn't being tortured, speed up his trial if possible and nail any asshole who was responsible for treating Manning like he was an Enemy Combatant. This isn't a big thing here.
According to Wiki:
Detention at Marine Corps Base Quantico
On July 29, 2010, Manning was moved from Kuwait to the Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia, and classified as a "maximum custody detainee" held under a "Prevention of Injury" assignment until April 2011. At Quantico he was detained in a 6 x 12 ft cell, with no window, furnished with a bed, toilet and sink, and with meals taken in his cell. According to The Washington Post, the facility had 30 cells built in a U shape, and although the detainees could talk to one another, they were unable to see each other, according to his lawyer, David Coombs, a former military attorney and member of the United States Army Reserve. Coombs said in December 2010 that the guards were professional, and had not tried to bully, harass, or embarrass Manning. He was allowed outside his cell to walk for up to one hour a day, shackled. There was access to television for limited periods when it was placed in the corridor outside his cell. He was allowed to keep one book and one magazine in his cell—according to Leigh and Harding, he requested Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (1781)—but otherwise no writing materials, though access to them was given during allotted times. He was shackled during visits.[37]
A Prevention of Injury order is one stop short of suicide watch. It entails checks by guards every five minutes, and no sleeping during the day. His lawyer said he was not allowed to sleep between 5 am (7 am at weekends) and 8 pm, and if he tried to, was made to stand or sit up. He was required to remain visible at all times, including at night, which entailed no access to sheets, no pillow except one built into his mattress, and a blanket designed not to be shredded. Until March 2011 he was required to sleep in boxer shorts, and had experienced chafing of the skin from the heavy blanket.[37] On March 2, he was told that an Article 138 complaint filed in January by his lawyer—asking that he be removed from maximum custody and prevention-of-injury watch—had been denied. His lawyer said Manning subsequently joked to the guards that, if he wanted to harm himself, he could do so "with the elastic waistband of his underwear or with his flip-flops." This resulted in him being required to sleep without clothing and present himself naked outside his cell for morning inspection, which his lawyer described as ritual humiliation, though from around March 10 onwards he was given a wrap-around smock with Velcro fasteners to sleep in. In response to the incident, the brig psychiatrist classified him as at low risk of suicide
So, some bad treatment, but hardly GITMO.
So what if he isn't being tortured to death? They shouldn't do that. And any guard who does mistreat him should be reprimanded harshly.
I agree. I'm not defending it, but he's hardly being beaten and waterboarded and tortured for the Cheif of Staff's amusement. To me it sounds like he was being a dick and overzealous guards decided that you fight dicks with dicks.
The guards should be reprimanded, as should any supervisor who okay'd it.
But just because a thing is bad doesn't make it the worst thing ever. Perspective.
It's not the worst thing ever. But I loathe when authority is being abused under any circumstance.
I'm pretty sure people who get arrested have rather long wait times before trial. I'm not defending that, but people need to slow thrusters a bit here.
That's not a big concern. The bigger priority is that he's not mistreated by his jailers.
It's a fundamental concern under the Constitution of the United States. The same thing for Jose Padilla who was held with out charge for years. Same practices. Different president.
EDIT: For instance any state in the Union could not do this. You'd be out in something like 90 days.
I meant compared to the abuse. I loathe infinite detention as much as you do, but it would be better than for Manning being constantly abused while in infinite detention. That'd break anyone mentally.
Harry Dresden on
0
Options
SerukoFerocious Kittenof The Farthest NorthRegistered Userregular
I'm pretty sure people who get arrested have rather long wait times before trial. I'm not defending that, but people need to slow thrusters a bit here.
That's not a big concern. The bigger priority is that he's not mistreated by his jailers.
It's a fundamental concern under the Constitution of the United States. The same thing for Jose Padilla who was held with out charge for years. Same practices. Different president.
EDIT: For instance any state in the Union could not do this. You'd be out in something like 90 days.
I meant compared to the abuse. I loathe infinite detention as much as you do, but it would 100% for Manning being constantly abused while in infinite detention. That'd break anyone mentally.
Oh. Well that is quite reasonable. Tip of the hat to you sir.
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
I am not being snarky, but are there not completely different standards and rules of procedure between civilian courts and procedures and military courts and procedures?
I.e., is Bradley Manning's treatment comparable to those previous who while in the military disclosed classified information?
DoctorArch on
Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I am not being snarky, but are there not completely different standards and rules of procedure between civilian courts and procedures and military courts and procedures?
I.e., is Bradley Manning's treatment comparable to those previous who while in the military disclosed classified information?
I would say probably. Whether that in and of itself is okay is another question. But I'm not surprised at all by Manning's treatment. I think the guards could've been less dicks, but I don't really have sympathy for him either.
I'm sure there are better ways to keep accountability than leaking classified information to a foreign "whistleblower".
0
Options
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
I'm pretty sure people who get arrested have rather long wait times before trial. I'm not defending that, but people need to slow thrusters a bit here.
Be that as it may, none of them have to wait 10 months before getting to enter a plea to the charges.
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
0
Options
SerukoFerocious Kittenof The Farthest NorthRegistered Userregular
I am not being snarky, but are there not completely different standards and rules of procedure between civilian courts and procedures and military courts and procedures?
I.e., is Bradley Manning's treatment comparable to those previous who while in the military disclosed classified information?
Bradley Manning's treatment is perfectly legal and proper underneath the current standard of indefinite detention due to the "war on terror," without that standard time limits apply. IIRC it's 180 days.
According to this Under article 10 of the UCMJ it's 120 Days.
Seruko on
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
And he absolutely should have prosecuted those responsible for torture as well as the other powerful people who are immune from the law in this country (hi Wall Street!). And yes this might have cost us ACA and I understand how other people might have different priorities, but... I think that's the most important one.
But this is not exactly new.
ACA > blood in the water.
See, my formulation is more equal justice under the law > ACA
But I've been waging that battle unsuccessfully on this forum since it became obvious Obama was going to win.
See, I think me getting medical coverage under my dad's insurance program and thus not dying last year is more important than some guy potentially getting tortured at Gitmo.
I don't agree but I understand. Were I in your position I'd feel the same way.
And see, here's the thing. It's not just my position that influenced my decision. It's the fact that ACA demonstrably saves lives. Pursuing, arresting, and convicting a handful of people with what amount to basically gross misconduct of official duties doesn't even begin to come close to weighing the scale evenly in terms of human capital preserved. They're not even in the same ballpark.
One is kind of a victory for principles, the other is literally a victory for the continued well-being of millions of people. It utilitarian terms, ACA wins. By a fucking landslide.
0
Options
SerukoFerocious Kittenof The Farthest NorthRegistered Userregular
And he absolutely should have prosecuted those responsible for torture as well as the other powerful people who are immune from the law in this country (hi Wall Street!). And yes this might have cost us ACA and I understand how other people might have different priorities, but... I think that's the most important one.
But this is not exactly new.
ACA > blood in the water.
See, my formulation is more equal justice under the law > ACA
But I've been waging that battle unsuccessfully on this forum since it became obvious Obama was going to win.
See, I think me getting medical coverage under my dad's insurance program and thus not dying last year is more important than some guy potentially getting tortured at Gitmo.
I don't agree but I understand. Were I in your position I'd feel the same way.
And see, here's the thing. It's not just my position that influenced my decision. It's the fact that ACA demonstrably saves lives. Pursuing, arresting, and convicting a handful of people with what amount to basically gross misconduct of official duties doesn't even begin to come close to weighing the scale evenly in terms of human capital preserved. They're not even in the same ballpark.
One is kind of a victory for principles, the other is literally a victory for the continued well-being of millions of people. It utilitarian terms, ACA wins. By a fucking landslide.
I'm glad you're alive.
What if instead of being able to buy insurance, which is what ACA does, you could just afford to pay for health care?
Because the ACA doesn't cover millions of people, it forces insurance companies to allow people to buy insurance and it raises the arbitrary age to which insurance companies offer the Dependants of people who buy insurance.
Seruko on
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
And he absolutely should have prosecuted those responsible for torture as well as the other powerful people who are immune from the law in this country (hi Wall Street!). And yes this might have cost us ACA and I understand how other people might have different priorities, but... I think that's the most important one.
But this is not exactly new.
ACA > blood in the water.
See, my formulation is more equal justice under the law > ACA
But I've been waging that battle unsuccessfully on this forum since it became obvious Obama was going to win.
See, I think me getting medical coverage under my dad's insurance program and thus not dying last year is more important than some guy potentially getting tortured at Gitmo.
I don't agree but I understand. Were I in your position I'd feel the same way.
And see, here's the thing. It's not just my position that influenced my decision. It's the fact that ACA demonstrably saves lives. Pursuing, arresting, and convicting a handful of people with what amount to basically gross misconduct of official duties doesn't even begin to come close to weighing the scale evenly in terms of human capital preserved. They're not even in the same ballpark.
One is kind of a victory for principles, the other is literally a victory for the continued well-being of millions of people. It utilitarian terms, ACA wins. By a fucking landslide.
I'm glad you're alive.
What if instead of being able to buy insurance, which is what ACA does, you could just afford to pay for health care?
I pay for healthcare by buying insurance.
0
Options
SerukoFerocious Kittenof The Farthest NorthRegistered Userregular
And he absolutely should have prosecuted those responsible for torture as well as the other powerful people who are immune from the law in this country (hi Wall Street!). And yes this might have cost us ACA and I understand how other people might have different priorities, but... I think that's the most important one.
But this is not exactly new.
ACA > blood in the water.
See, my formulation is more equal justice under the law > ACA
But I've been waging that battle unsuccessfully on this forum since it became obvious Obama was going to win.
See, I think me getting medical coverage under my dad's insurance program and thus not dying last year is more important than some guy potentially getting tortured at Gitmo.
I don't agree but I understand. Were I in your position I'd feel the same way.
And see, here's the thing. It's not just my position that influenced my decision. It's the fact that ACA demonstrably saves lives. Pursuing, arresting, and convicting a handful of people with what amount to basically gross misconduct of official duties doesn't even begin to come close to weighing the scale evenly in terms of human capital preserved. They're not even in the same ballpark.
One is kind of a victory for principles, the other is literally a victory for the continued well-being of millions of people. It utilitarian terms, ACA wins. By a fucking landslide.
I'm glad you're alive.
What if instead of being able to buy insurance, which is what ACA does, you could just afford to pay for health care?
I pay for healthcare by buying insurance.
No one pays for health care, it's too expensive. You pay an insurance premium based on an actuarial projection of risk and return on investment. Your health care provider give your insurance company a bill. They look at that bill and laugh and use their collective bargaining power it ignore the greater part of the charges. That final number might have been a number you could have afforded to pay in the first place.
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
And he absolutely should have prosecuted those responsible for torture as well as the other powerful people who are immune from the law in this country (hi Wall Street!). And yes this might have cost us ACA and I understand how other people might have different priorities, but... I think that's the most important one.
But this is not exactly new.
ACA > blood in the water.
See, my formulation is more equal justice under the law > ACA
But I've been waging that battle unsuccessfully on this forum since it became obvious Obama was going to win.
See, I think me getting medical coverage under my dad's insurance program and thus not dying last year is more important than some guy potentially getting tortured at Gitmo.
I don't agree but I understand. Were I in your position I'd feel the same way.
And see, here's the thing. It's not just my position that influenced my decision. It's the fact that ACA demonstrably saves lives. Pursuing, arresting, and convicting a handful of people with what amount to basically gross misconduct of official duties doesn't even begin to come close to weighing the scale evenly in terms of human capital preserved. They're not even in the same ballpark.
One is kind of a victory for principles, the other is literally a victory for the continued well-being of millions of people. It utilitarian terms, ACA wins. By a fucking landslide.
I'm glad you're alive.
What if instead of being able to buy insurance, which is what ACA does, you could just afford to pay for health care?
I pay for healthcare by buying insurance.
No one pays for health care, it's too expensive. You pay an insurance premium based on an actuarial projection of risk and return on investment. Your health care provider give your insurance company a bill. They look at that bill and laugh and use their collective bargaining power it ignore the greater part of the charges. That final number might have been a number you could have afforded to pay in the first place.
You're proposing Universal Healthcare, right? Right now it's a pipe-dream. I'll take what victories I can and hope for more as things progress.
0
Options
SerukoFerocious Kittenof The Farthest NorthRegistered Userregular
And he absolutely should have prosecuted those responsible for torture as well as the other powerful people who are immune from the law in this country (hi Wall Street!). And yes this might have cost us ACA and I understand how other people might have different priorities, but... I think that's the most important one.
But this is not exactly new.
ACA > blood in the water.
See, my formulation is more equal justice under the law > ACA
But I've been waging that battle unsuccessfully on this forum since it became obvious Obama was going to win.
See, I think me getting medical coverage under my dad's insurance program and thus not dying last year is more important than some guy potentially getting tortured at Gitmo.
I don't agree but I understand. Were I in your position I'd feel the same way.
And see, here's the thing. It's not just my position that influenced my decision. It's the fact that ACA demonstrably saves lives. Pursuing, arresting, and convicting a handful of people with what amount to basically gross misconduct of official duties doesn't even begin to come close to weighing the scale evenly in terms of human capital preserved. They're not even in the same ballpark.
One is kind of a victory for principles, the other is literally a victory for the continued well-being of millions of people. It utilitarian terms, ACA wins. By a fucking landslide.
I'm glad you're alive.
What if instead of being able to buy insurance, which is what ACA does, you could just afford to pay for health care?
I pay for healthcare by buying insurance.
No one pays for health care, it's too expensive. You pay an insurance premium based on an actuarial projection of risk and return on investment. Your health care provider give your insurance company a bill. They look at that bill and laugh and use their collective bargaining power it ignore the greater part of the charges. That final number might have been a number you could have afforded to pay in the first place.
You're proposing Universal Healthcare, right? Right now it's a pipe-dream. I'll take what victories I can and hope for more as things progress.
Well what I'd like is universal health care.
What I'd settle for is price reform.
Price reform is everything. Without it Health care still explodes for everyone when the boomers fully retire.
Edit: I'd rather be living than dead too. What ACA does not do
1. Solve Long Term Systemic Problems
2. Help the Under Insured -> this is a big deal, especially since health care costs are so crazy
3. Cover Everyone (Something like 23 million people are still not covered).
4. Anything else. Economic, Foreign Policy, Etc.
ACA didnt save the lives of the 33 million people it allowed to now buy health insurance.
Nor does it any way change the way health care providers from being required to cover the uninsured.
Seruko on
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
It's a framework for progress. We were never going to get Universal Healthcare. Hell, the Republicans didn't even want an Individual Mandate, something they campaigned for in the 90s. Things will hopefully get better as time goes on. All-Or-Nothing plays on the level of UHC aren't feasible right now. Accept that and move on.
It's a framework for progress. We were never going to get Universal Healthcare. Hell, the Republicans didn't even want an Individual Mandate, something they campaigned for in the 90s. Things will hopefully get better as time goes on. All-Or-Nothing plays on the level of UHC aren't feasible right now. Accept that and move on.
That's true. It's a good first step to UHC.
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
It's really the closest we're going to get to UHC in the coming years, barring a radical shift in national culture re: medicine in America. We've still got a long road to hoe before we get UHC in the way everyone else in the world enjoys it.
It's really the closest we're going to get to UHC in the coming years, barring a radical shift in national culture re: medicine in America. We've still got a long road to hoe before we get UHC in the way everyone else in the world enjoys it.
He's going to be on trial for basically treason, I don't think anyone cares about his gender status.
Exactly. The guy is literally facing the death penalty, or at least life in prison, for crimes against his country. His gender is the least important part of of this story by several orders or magnitude.
Posts
Don't care if everyone and their uncle knows he did it, innocent until proven guilty and all that.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Looks to me like they are making preparations to send him to trial. Though his holding hasn't been perfect.
If terrorist organizations issued a formal declaration of war and wore uniforms, would it be okay to use drones then or are we only allowed to use purely military force (i.e. skip the "try and arrest" phase) against sovereign nations?
Or is it that we shouldn't be allowed to use drones against American citizens in terrorist organizations?
I'm so confused. When is it okay to use drones?
Are we even talking about this anymore?
It would be very situational--which, I guess, is true today as well. Lots--I mean, very large numbers, anyway--of Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army POWs ended up being tortured by Americans working in cooperation with the South Vietnamese armed forces or by themselves. Phoenix Program, anyone? Hell, even unsanctioned torture could easily be excused as being sanctioned through some ultimately ineffectual terror initiative or another to break the enemy's will to fight.
To be fair, this was hardly unique to the United States. But people who go all "One True Scotsman" on the Armed Forces are deluding themselves more than a little bit, depending on the situation. "My word, the army I was in would have never stood for that." Yeah, gramps, because in the Pacific, they were cutting ears and heads off Japanese POWs to dry them out into knicknacks and hilarious skull beverage holders, or to win a poster of some 40s pinup on an army radio show. And if a few surrendered prisoners got shot because of a tough campaign, who cares? Not that many to start with. "Roughing prisoners up" in such a way that a great many people would call torture today wasn't unheard of.
Once again, not unique to the United States then either. The Japanese used "enhanced interrogation techniques", among other horrible things, on POWs. Germany experimented on their Soviet POWs.
Obama needn't get personally involved. Just tell the right people to stick their noses in to make sure he isn't being tortured, speed up his trial if possible and nail any asshole who was responsible for treating Manning like he was an Enemy Combatant. This isn't a big thing here.
See Bradley Manning.
May 2010 - April 2011 Before he was given the opportunity to plead his case. How can you even argue that?
Regardless of your argument, until April 2011 his detention was indefinite. Ergo Indefinite Detention has not been ended by the Obama Administration.
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
According to Wiki:
So, some bad treatment, but hardly GITMO.
Well, were arguing whether indefinite Detention, or being held without ever receiving a trial, is still happening and this doesn't seem to be the case here. So like that I guess.
I do feel that might have violated his 6th amendment rights and wouldn't be surprised if he sued for that.
I am confused I read you to be saying "holding someone without trial for 11 months is okay, because eventually we got around to giving them their day in court."
Indefinate Detention does not mean Detaining someone forever. It means Detaining someone until no definite future point. Edit "Beyond reasonable limits, well codified in law"
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
You are confused. I just said that holding him might have been a violation of his 6th amendment rights. That's no small problem. As to whether its comparable to Guantanemo and other incidents I don't know but lean towards disagree. I'd need to see why he was held that long. It's rare but people bave been held that long before do to difficulties with prosecution.
So what if he isn't being tortured to death? They shouldn't do that. And any guard who does mistreat him should be reprimanded harshly.
That's not a big concern. The bigger priority is that he's not mistreated by his jailers.
edit: That said, indefinite detection should not be on the table for punishing Manning or anyone else. At least without being sentenced first.
I agree. I'm not defending it, but he's hardly being beaten and waterboarded and tortured for the Cheif of Staff's amusement. To me it sounds like he was being a dick and overzealous guards decided that you fight dicks with dicks.
The guards should be reprimanded, as should any supervisor who okay'd it.
But just because a thing is bad doesn't make it the worst thing ever. Perspective.
It's a fundamental concern under the Constitution of the United States. The same thing for Jose Padilla who was held with out charge for years. Same practices. Different president.
EDIT: For instance any state in the Union could not do this. You'd be out in something like 90 days.
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
It's not the worst thing ever. But I loathe when authority is being abused under any circumstance.
Which is 100% legitimate.
I meant compared to the abuse. I loathe infinite detention as much as you do, but it would be better than for Manning being constantly abused while in infinite detention. That'd break anyone mentally.
Oh. Well that is quite reasonable. Tip of the hat to you sir.
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
I.e., is Bradley Manning's treatment comparable to those previous who while in the military disclosed classified information?
I would say probably. Whether that in and of itself is okay is another question. But I'm not surprised at all by Manning's treatment. I think the guards could've been less dicks, but I don't really have sympathy for him either.
I'm sure there are better ways to keep accountability than leaking classified information to a foreign "whistleblower".
Be that as it may, none of them have to wait 10 months before getting to enter a plea to the charges.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Bradley Manning's treatment is perfectly legal and proper underneath the current standard of indefinite detention due to the "war on terror," without that standard time limits apply. IIRC it's 180 days.
According to this Under article 10 of the UCMJ it's 120 Days.
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
And see, here's the thing. It's not just my position that influenced my decision. It's the fact that ACA demonstrably saves lives. Pursuing, arresting, and convicting a handful of people with what amount to basically gross misconduct of official duties doesn't even begin to come close to weighing the scale evenly in terms of human capital preserved. They're not even in the same ballpark.
One is kind of a victory for principles, the other is literally a victory for the continued well-being of millions of people. It utilitarian terms, ACA wins. By a fucking landslide.
I'm glad you're alive.
What if instead of being able to buy insurance, which is what ACA does, you could just afford to pay for health care?
Because the ACA doesn't cover millions of people, it forces insurance companies to allow people to buy insurance and it raises the arbitrary age to which insurance companies offer the Dependants of people who buy insurance.
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
I pay for healthcare by buying insurance.
No one pays for health care, it's too expensive. You pay an insurance premium based on an actuarial projection of risk and return on investment. Your health care provider give your insurance company a bill. They look at that bill and laugh and use their collective bargaining power it ignore the greater part of the charges. That final number might have been a number you could have afforded to pay in the first place.
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
You're proposing Universal Healthcare, right? Right now it's a pipe-dream. I'll take what victories I can and hope for more as things progress.
Well what I'd like is universal health care.
What I'd settle for is price reform.
Price reform is everything. Without it Health care still explodes for everyone when the boomers fully retire.
Edit: I'd rather be living than dead too. What ACA does not do
1. Solve Long Term Systemic Problems
2. Help the Under Insured -> this is a big deal, especially since health care costs are so crazy
3. Cover Everyone (Something like 23 million people are still not covered).
4. Anything else. Economic, Foreign Policy, Etc.
ACA didnt save the lives of the 33 million people it allowed to now buy health insurance.
Nor does it any way change the way health care providers from being required to cover the uninsured.
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
That's true. It's a good first step to UHC.
Yep.
http://globalcomment.com/2011/why-does-the-media-still-refer-to-“bradley”-manning-the-curious-silence-around-a-transgender-hero/
At least, the private chat logs suggest such a thing. Manning hasn't made a public statement. I find it super weird that no one ever talks about it.
We probably won't hear anything about it one way or the other unless the trial becomes an open, public affair.
Because it doesn't matter?
He's going to be on trial for basically treason, I don't think anyone cares about his gender status.
Exactly. The guy is literally facing the death penalty, or at least life in prison, for crimes against his country. His gender is the least important part of of this story by several orders or magnitude.