News1 min ago
Fair treatment for Bradley (Wikileaks) Manning?
58 Answers
Bradley Manning, the original source of the recent Wikileaks scandal, is currently being held in detention for stealing 720,000 documents. He has not yet had his case heard by a court.
He is being held in solitary confinement in a maximum security prison and shackled by the arms and legs during any visits.
Fair treatment for the alleged crime or unjustified cruelty?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/...ld-us-canada-12728315
http://www.amnesty.or...ails.asp?NewsID=19193
He is being held in solitary confinement in a maximum security prison and shackled by the arms and legs during any visits.
Fair treatment for the alleged crime or unjustified cruelty?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/...ld-us-canada-12728315
http://www.amnesty.or...ails.asp?NewsID=19193
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by birdie1971. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Aw, the poor lamb! I have not yet heard what the charge against him is or is to be, but I assume it might well be treason. If so, I imagine his treatment is fully in accordance with that.
We in Britain have hanged people found guilty of that in my lifetime and THEY weren't allowed to drift about freely in prison either...before OR after trial.
We in Britain have hanged people found guilty of that in my lifetime and THEY weren't allowed to drift about freely in prison either...before OR after trial.
Quizmonster -
You seem to be confusing the word 'accused' with the word 'guilty'. It may have escaped your attention but Mr Manning hasn't yet been charged, let alone been to court and yet you see no problem with the manner of his incarceration. Good grief! Have you no compassion?
No one has died as the result of this man's actions. The diplomatic world has not been turned upside-down by the revelations in the Wikileaks documents. All that has happened is that some politicians and diplomats have been made to look rather foolish and/or slightly duplicitous (wow – what a revelation – diplomats and politicians aren't entirely honest!). And yet despite this, you seem perfectly happy for Mr Manning to be kept prisoner in a manner that would shame a third-world dictatorship.
The punishment that this man is currently going through far outweighs any damage done to international relations and he hasn't even been found guilty.
You seem to be confusing the word 'accused' with the word 'guilty'. It may have escaped your attention but Mr Manning hasn't yet been charged, let alone been to court and yet you see no problem with the manner of his incarceration. Good grief! Have you no compassion?
No one has died as the result of this man's actions. The diplomatic world has not been turned upside-down by the revelations in the Wikileaks documents. All that has happened is that some politicians and diplomats have been made to look rather foolish and/or slightly duplicitous (wow – what a revelation – diplomats and politicians aren't entirely honest!). And yet despite this, you seem perfectly happy for Mr Manning to be kept prisoner in a manner that would shame a third-world dictatorship.
The punishment that this man is currently going through far outweighs any damage done to international relations and he hasn't even been found guilty.
Quote 1: "No one has died as the result of this man's actions." Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, as they say. In other words, "Just 'cos we can't prove it, don't mean 'e ain't done it, mate!" You simply do not KNOW whether his activities have resulted in anyone's death or not. A little revenge-taking in the depths of the Tora Bora Mountains might never come to light. In addition, the possible damage done to international relations might well give rise to situations that DO cost lives in the future, so we simply cannot tell what effect the leaks might well yet have .
Quote 2: "Wow – what a revelation – diplomats and politicians aren't entirely honest!" So, if the leaks have revealed only THAT fact, why did he and his sidekick, Assange, even bother?
Military prisons, in Britain just as much as in the USA and elsewhere, have never been noted for their kindly treatment of inmates. And a good thing, too. I spent the first half of my working life...I'm now retired...in military service and the one thing one doesn't want in such circumstances is the fear that the man working next to you or sharing a Mess with you is a traitor. If he's eventually found innocent, then fine, but don't bother with the kid gloves in the meantime, was the general attitude of serving men back then. As far as I am concerned, the same applies here.
It seems Manning, trying to be funny, said that, if he wanted to commit suicide, he could use the waistband of his underpants or his flip-flops. Surprise, surprise...they took away these potential means of self-destruction! And what would you and your ilk have to say about it if he DID manage to kill himself? "Shameful neglect by American authorities!" I do not doubt.
PS Re our earlier 'correspondence', it seems the extradition-hearing judge claimed the Swedish charges against Assange WERE justifiably called 'rape', despite your claims. And re
Quote 2: "Wow – what a revelation – diplomats and politicians aren't entirely honest!" So, if the leaks have revealed only THAT fact, why did he and his sidekick, Assange, even bother?
Military prisons, in Britain just as much as in the USA and elsewhere, have never been noted for their kindly treatment of inmates. And a good thing, too. I spent the first half of my working life...I'm now retired...in military service and the one thing one doesn't want in such circumstances is the fear that the man working next to you or sharing a Mess with you is a traitor. If he's eventually found innocent, then fine, but don't bother with the kid gloves in the meantime, was the general attitude of serving men back then. As far as I am concerned, the same applies here.
It seems Manning, trying to be funny, said that, if he wanted to commit suicide, he could use the waistband of his underpants or his flip-flops. Surprise, surprise...they took away these potential means of self-destruction! And what would you and your ilk have to say about it if he DID manage to kill himself? "Shameful neglect by American authorities!" I do not doubt.
PS Re our earlier 'correspondence', it seems the extradition-hearing judge claimed the Swedish charges against Assange WERE justifiably called 'rape', despite your claims. And re
For Pete's sake! It still hasn't come out right. The following was the amputated part...
"And re 'compassion', I hope both get what they deserve, whether that is freedom and glory or long incarceration. (Please note that last sentence and the one beginning, "If he's eventually..." above, before bothering to reply.)"
"And re 'compassion', I hope both get what they deserve, whether that is freedom and glory or long incarceration. (Please note that last sentence and the one beginning, "If he's eventually..." above, before bothering to reply.)"
Quizmonster, I've heard it argued (I think it was in the FT, but can't find it at the moment) that Manning - assuming him to have done what they say he has - has done the USA a great deal of good. The gist of the Wikileaks was that US diplomats said in private pretty much what they were saying in public, and furthermore the revelation that they were indeed greatly concerned about tyranny in the Middle East has cast them in a much better light, in the eyes of rebels in various countries, than did the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, which merely made them look anti-Islamic.
Regardless of what might have been done in Roger Casement's day, I can't see that shackles are necessary for someone in his position. They just serve to make the US look pointlessly vindictive.
Regardless of what might have been done in Roger Casement's day, I can't see that shackles are necessary for someone in his position. They just serve to make the US look pointlessly vindictive.
HabDabs, in Sweden there are apparently three 'levels' of rape. One claim against him is that, after having consensual sex the previous night, one woman woke to find him at it again, condomless this time. That, it seems, is considered rape in Britain, too, presumably on the basis that, if you were asleep, you could not have given consent, condom or not.
Whether WE agree with Swedish law's definition of rape is of no consequence and Assange needs to go there to answer to the charge. You'd think he'd want to clear his name...wouldn't YOU?
Whether WE agree with Swedish law's definition of rape is of no consequence and Assange needs to go there to answer to the charge. You'd think he'd want to clear his name...wouldn't YOU?
Her account to police, which Assange disputes, stated that he began stroking her leg as they drank tea, before he pulled off her clothes and snapped a necklace that she was wearing. According to her statement she "tried to put on some articles of clothing as it was going too quickly and uncomfortably but Assange ripped them off again". Miss A told police that she didn't want to go any further "but that it was too late to stop Assange as she had gone along with it so far", and so she allowed him to undress her.
According to the statement, Miss A then realised he was trying to have unprotected sex with her. She told police that she had tried a number of times to reach for a condom but Assange had stopped her by holding her arms and pinning her legs. The statement records Miss A describing how Assange then released her arms and agreed to use a condom, but she told the police that at some stage Assange had "done something" with the condom that resulted in it becoming ripped, and ejaculated without withdrawing.
When he was later interviewed by police in Stockholm, Assange agreed that he had had sex with Miss A but said he did not tear the condom, and that he was not aware that it had been torn. He told police that he had continued to sleep in Miss A's bed for the following week and she had never mentioned a torn condom.
On the following morning, Saturday 14 August, Assange spoke at a seminar organised by Miss A. A second woman, Miss W, had contacted Miss A to ask if she could attend. Both women joined Assange, the co-ordinator of the Swedish WikiLeaks group, whom we will call "Harold", and a few others for lunch.
Assange left the lunch with Miss W. She told the police she and Assange had visited the place where she worked and had then gone to a cinema where they had moved to the back row. He had kissed her and put his hands inside her clothing, she said.
That evening,
According to the statement, Miss A then realised he was trying to have unprotected sex with her. She told police that she had tried a number of times to reach for a condom but Assange had stopped her by holding her arms and pinning her legs. The statement records Miss A describing how Assange then released her arms and agreed to use a condom, but she told the police that at some stage Assange had "done something" with the condom that resulted in it becoming ripped, and ejaculated without withdrawing.
When he was later interviewed by police in Stockholm, Assange agreed that he had had sex with Miss A but said he did not tear the condom, and that he was not aware that it had been torn. He told police that he had continued to sleep in Miss A's bed for the following week and she had never mentioned a torn condom.
On the following morning, Saturday 14 August, Assange spoke at a seminar organised by Miss A. A second woman, Miss W, had contacted Miss A to ask if she could attend. Both women joined Assange, the co-ordinator of the Swedish WikiLeaks group, whom we will call "Harold", and a few others for lunch.
Assange left the lunch with Miss W. She told the police she and Assange had visited the place where she worked and had then gone to a cinema where they had moved to the back row. He had kissed her and put his hands inside her clothing, she said.
That evening,
Ah, J, the law of unintended consequences, eh? Hardly the best of defence approaches, I'd say!
Re shackles, you must have seen documentaries about death-row inmates or even just murder suspects entering courtrooms in America. Regardless of the impenetrable security around the former and virtually the same around the latter, they are frequently hobbled in one way or another. This is how America chooses to act and I can see no reason why they should not.
Re shackles, you must have seen documentaries about death-row inmates or even just murder suspects entering courtrooms in America. Regardless of the impenetrable security around the former and virtually the same around the latter, they are frequently hobbled in one way or another. This is how America chooses to act and I can see no reason why they should not.
well... I'd say for the same reason that hardline Islamic countries shouldn't stone women to death for adultery. I can agree that they have a right to arrange their own judicial procedures, but still retain my own right to call it unpleasant.
Why do you think the consequences were unintended, though? Are you assuming that Manning (if guilty as charged) was trying to shame the USA? It seems perfectly possible that the consequences were entirely as he intended them: simply to let the truth be known. If the truth reflects well on his country, why should we assume this was unintended?
Why do you think the consequences were unintended, though? Are you assuming that Manning (if guilty as charged) was trying to shame the USA? It seems perfectly possible that the consequences were entirely as he intended them: simply to let the truth be known. If the truth reflects well on his country, why should we assume this was unintended?
Aw, come on, J! You're clutching at straws now. Surely you cannot be contending that Manning, if guilty, actually had America's best interests at heart.
I have no objection whatever to your thinking shackling is 'unpleasant' and stoning clearly even more so, but it simply isn't down to us to decide how other peoples choose to run their lives or judicial systems.
I have no objection whatever to your thinking shackling is 'unpleasant' and stoning clearly even more so, but it simply isn't down to us to decide how other peoples choose to run their lives or judicial systems.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.