Fair treatment for Bradley (Wikileaks) Manning?

[birdie1971]

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

[Aqualung]

Quizmonster if he is being held for 23 hours a day in a sparsely furnished solitary cell and deprived of a pillow, sheets, and personal possessions since July 2010.
Will they trust him to have a pen and paper ?

[Quizmonster]

This is just becoming silly now, so on that basis, I'd say, "Paper, just maybe, though there ARE always paper-cuts, but pen...no way! Pens have sharp points."

[joggerjayne]

I wonder if Crowley would seriously speak out against the Government?

He has seen what happens to people ... (Manning!) ... who do that!

And, as Julian Assange has found out ... if you upset the US Govt in public, surprise criminal sex charges suddenly pop out of the woodwork, with more of that good old, reliable "evidence" to back them up.

Of course, there were no charges, and no evidence, UNTIL you you upset the US Government, and then, suddenly ... Kapow!! ... evidence magically appears.

[joggerjayne]

Getting silly? Paper cuts?

You want "silly" ... here is "silly" ... US Authorites style ...

In his cell, during the night, every five minutes, Manning was woken and required to confirm that he was fit.

This is called sleep deprivation torture. Oops, sorry, my mistake ... it's called "prevention of injury" and it's "for his own protection".

When Manning finally protested that he could hardly injure himself with his boxer shorts (which are all that he was left with at night), the boxer shorts, too, were taken away, and that was how he came to be left naked at night in his cell.

"Silly"?

You don't know what "silly" means until you've tried to reason with the US Authorities.

[Quizmonster]

If he was "hung out to dry", why wouldn't he, Jayne? What could the government have against HIM? And I do hope you are not claiming that there is no evidence against Manning.
Why also doesn't Assange go to Sweden to disprove the charges against him? If you believed YOU'd been raped, wouldn't you hope to see the runaway accused brought to court?

[Quizmonster]

You've got the boxer-shorts story wrong, Jayne. See an earlier answer here of mine which told it correctly. Manning claimed that, if he wanted to commit suicide, he could do so with the waistband of his underpants or his flip-flops. The prison authorities thought, "Right smart-ass, we'll take these away and THEN you won't be able to do that!"

Just who was "silly"?

[birdie1971]

I appreciate everyone's contribution to this thread.

I just want to ask Quizmonster one very important question...

1. Do you think it is reasonable to torture (and sleep deprivation is considered by The European Court of Human Rights to constitute torture) a person, regardless of his crime, who has not been officially charged with any crime and before he has had his case heard before a court of law?

[Quizmonster]

As I said earlier, I would not expect MILITARY guards in a MILITARY prison to treat a MILITARY prisoner with kid gloves, especially if they were convinced he was a traitor. After all, it's usually THEIR lives which are put at stake by such people.
There are as many definitions of torture in specific circumstances as people you choose to ask. You've chosen the ECHR one in this case and good luck to you.

And there I will definitely leave it. I do have a "real" life and one wasted morning yesterday is as much as I am prepared to devote to this query of yours.

PS Purely as a matter of interest, "Do YOU think it is reasonable"... for Sweden to have its own definition of what constitutes rape?

[MrJabezClegg]

So Quizmonster seeing as he has not be found guilty of any crime i take it that you think is is acceptable that the Americans torture who they like.

[MrJabezClegg]

Will this person end up in the cell next to Bradleys

P.J. Crowley resigns after criticizing Pentagon's treatment of prisoner

State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley has resigned following controversial comments he made last week about the Pentagon.

Crowley, who announced his resignation on March 13, stepped aside after criticizing the government's treatment of Private First Class Bradley Manning, who is accused of releasing hundreds of thousands of confidential documents to WikiLeaks. During an event at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) last week, Crowley was asked about his reaction to reports that military officials have allegedly tortured Manning.

According to blogger Philippa Thomas, who attended the MIT conference, Crowley said the Pentagon's tactics were "ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid." Although he added that Manning is "in the right place," his comments were viewed as critical of the government's handling of a prisoner.

[birdie1971]

Quizmonster - “And there I will definitely leave it. I do have a "real" life and one wasted morning yesterday is as much as I am prepared to devote to this query of yours.”

Do you think you're so important that my initial question was addressed to you specifically? No one forced you to answer my question, you utter imbecile. You chose to do so.

[NOX]

Well I for one was humbled and honoured to have been part of the great Quizmonster's devoted morning to all of us lesser mortals (wonder if they have sarcasm on his planet)?

[birdie1971]

^^^ You're quite right. I was forgetting myself. I too am humbled and honoured to receive the wisdom from his Quizmoster-ness and would like to thank him for devoting so much of his precious time in engaging the ignorami in debate. I am supine in his presence and will never again have the temerity to petition his opinion on such ephemera.

[Quizmonster]

Birdie, in your clearly overwrought state, you obviously failed to notice that eleven out of fifty contributions to your thread WERE "addressed to me specifically"! The eleven included three of your own timed at 0001 Tue, 0010 Wed and 0119 Friday. The last three submissions were clearly far more imbecilic that anything I wrote, but at least they got our relative intellectual positions about right.
Are you suggesting that one should respond only to an "initial question" and ignore any subsequent points made? What a tiresome site this would be were that so!

I notice, by the way, that YOU did not answer the question I asked you at 0629 on Wednesday. How dare you so treat one you happily acknowledge as Master?

[birdie1971]

^^^ Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you'd flounced out already.

As you're apparently still here I shall respond.

First let me answer your question, which I admit I failed to answer because it's a puerile question and one which only serves to derail the matter under discussion. However, since you've asked... “Purely as a matter of interest, "Do YOU think it is reasonable"... for Sweden to have its own definition of what constitutes rape?”

Indeed I do. You are of course referring to the Assange allegation. As I have repeatedly stated, HE IS NOT BEING ACCUSED OF RAPE BY THE SWEDISH AUTHORITIES. Sorry about the capitals but I (and others) have said this so many times and yet you continue to assert that 'rape' is the charge he is accused of. Please try to understand – it's not difficult – or maybe it is for someone who seemingly cannot differentiate between the words “accused” and “guilty”.

[birdie1971]

Continued...

You go on to dribble, “Are you suggesting that one should respond only to an "initial question" and ignore any subsequent points made?” - No, that's not what I am suggesting. What I am suggesting is that all contributions are voluntary. You chose to answer questions, rebuke criticisms and generally argue your case at your own convenience. It's rather rich to accuse another poster of being responsible for, “... one wasted morning yesterday...”, while making a conscious choice to fervently type out another half-baked excuse as to why the USA is justified in torturing a person not convicted of any crime.

Please feel free to respond if you can spare your precious time.

[Quizmonster]

I said I’d tired of your question. Since then, you have moved on to diatribes regarding me personally, which clearly have nothing to do with that question. So, your point about ‘flouncing’ and use of other playground vocabulary are total irrelevances, which merely make me tire of your boorishness as well.
If you put Assange+Sweden+charges into Google, the very first hit is from the UK Human Rights Blog website – right up your street, I’d have thought. Its headline reads, “Julian Assange must face RAPE charges in Sweden, rules court”.
A few sites further down, the following is an extract from The Guardian’s account of his extradition hearing…
“The judge says the three alleged offences against Miss A meet the criteria for extradition offences and a fourth against Miss B, an allegation of RAPE, "would amount to rape" in this country (the defence had disputed this).”
(Upper-case, used in the two paragraphs above, is of course mine.)
It's clear to me that he IS being "accused" of rape; whether that has yet appeared as an actual "charge" I do not know. Perhaps you are the one who needs to “try to understand”.
Given that you cannot keep a civil tongue in your head, I will now call a halt to - flounce, if you like, from - this second front that you started.

[birdie1971]

Interesting that your have attempted to turn a question about Bradley Manning into a debate about Julian Assange... I wonder why? Actually, I don't – it's pretty obvious even to you, that Manning's specific method of incarceration is pretty indefensible since he has not been charged with, let alone found guilty of, any offence. Have you forgotten the initial question? This never was a debate about Assange's charges or his guilt or his innocence.

Seeing as you seem intent on discussing Assange, let's do so. Did you read the Guardian's article that you Googled? If you did, you will have noticed that the amount of hearsay evidence and the lack of an immediate (or even timely) complaint by the alleged victim is quite profound – the 'victim' even stayed with him for an entire week (and therefore it's rational and reasonable to conclude that she felt safe and comfortable in his company) and it was only after she'd spoken to friends about her “… worst sex ever...” that another woman called 'Monica' reported Assange to the police... and so it goes on. A merry-go-round of he said she said.

Is Assange guilty of rape and/or a sexual assault? I don't know as I'm not privy to the pertinent information. Just as you are not. Does the allegation look a tad suspicious and spurious? Personally, I think it stinks, if the Guardians' article is anything to go by.

And of course despite all this badinage , Bradley Manning is still in solitary confinement despite not being charged nor having his case heard before a court...