SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
As reported here
Chelsea Manning, the transgender Army private convicted of leaking national security secrets, faces a hearing Tuesday for prison infractions that could result in solitary confinement.
Manning, who was intelligence analyst Bradley Manning when arrested in 2010, is charged with disrespect of a prison officer and is accused having books and magazines including Vanity Fair and Cosmopolitan, among other offenses.
Noteable from the article, it is apparently "disrespect of an officer" to request a lawyer.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Chelsea Manning Faces Solitary Confinement
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 73 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Q: Why did the tachyon cross the road?
A: Because it was on the other side.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2015, @07:04AM
Imagine how historic it would be: black prez pardons transgender traitor.
(Score: 2, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2015, @07:36AM
Imagine how historic it would be: black prez pardons transgender freedom fighter.
FTFY
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2015, @07:43AM
FTFFY
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2015, @08:50AM
+1 disagree with troll mod. That is quite funny.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 15 2015, @05:11AM
Funny in that, as I understand it, the term nigger implies "ignorant" and Obama is clearly educated, far more than the GP appears to be?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 15 2015, @05:14AM
Oh look, it's Runaway1956 posting anonymously.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by EventH0rizon on Friday August 14 2015, @07:28AM
The cruel and unusual punishment of Chelsea Manning punishment continues.
Disgraceful
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2015, @08:30AM
Wait, the punishment is being punished?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2015, @09:10AM
(Score: 5, Interesting) by aristarchus on Friday August 14 2015, @09:25AM
All those alleged "soldiers" who kept on following orders, and we have one that releases the truth to the world? And of course, he/now she must be punished for having done the right thing? Do you know how many of Hilary's emails Manning released? Of course you do not. Do you know that Collateral Murder was standing policy for certain national militaries, in contravention of all international laws of armed conflict? Do you know what the statue of limitations is on war crimes? Yes, correct, there is none. If we find you, Nazi Death Camp person, when you are 80, you are going down. Same for US Armed forces. And maybe they will not be tried, except that when it comes to war crimes, there is Universal Jurisdiction: hear that, you dogs of American war! Your government may have been able to cut side deals with a lot of other nations not to abide by the convention of the Rome accords concerning the ICC, but it still remains the case that any nation has the right to try anyone for war crimes. Chelsea Manning will be vindicated by history. Many, very many, or her comrades in arms will not.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2015, @10:46AM
Manning released a lot of shit that was heavily edited to present a false narrative, such as the collateral damage video, or the documents about Ecuador which has given leeway for that country's President to become a totalitarian dictator overnight. I don't see how one can view those results positively.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by Username on Friday August 14 2015, @11:21AM
All he did was collect sensitive information and release it, without redacting, in order to impress his online friends. There’s no moral or justice behind it. It was pure vanity.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2015, @11:52AM
Yes, clearly that's what he did. He risks solitary confinement all to impress his online friends; that seems highly probable.
But I would say all you did was absolutely nothing. The least normal people can do is support whistleblowers like Manning or Snowden, but you fail at even that. You don't do anything, and you mock those who reveal abuses. You're not just useless; you're part of the problem.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2015, @01:17PM
Manning was a traitor who cared nothing for the lives of those involved in his disclosures.
Snowden is a bit easier to like since nothing he revealed wasn't already practically common knowledge anyway (even if people looked at you like you were crazy)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Nollij on Friday August 14 2015, @01:30PM
That's a horrible line of reasoning - The whole point of whistle-blowers is telling us things we DON'T know!
I'll grant you that Manning was more concerned about himself, but the fact that it wasn't (as) widely known doesn't factor into whether it was treasonous, or selfish.
Snowden is easier to like for a few reasons:
1) He's well-spoken. He's given several interviews, and is able to cast himself in a positive light
2) His opposition - the NSA - is widely disliked/distrusted
3) He seems to genuinely be altruistic - that he's taken extreme risk for the benefit of others (i.e. US citizens). Related to #1
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2015, @02:36PM
But there is a marked difference between something being "commonly known" to be happening and knowing with facts that something is happening. That is the gift that Snowden bestowed upon the American people and the world.
Instead of two people in a coffee shop somewhere talking about how the American government probably does this or that major news organizations were reporting on the front page and leading stories on TV that this and that is happening and these are the three letter organization doing it.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday August 14 2015, @06:00PM
But there is a marked difference between something being "commonly known" to be happening and knowing with facts that something is happening.
Yes, and there was good reason to believe it was happening even before Snowden came along, and even some talk about it. Snowden gave us more evidence, more details, and sparked lots of debate, which is good.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday August 14 2015, @03:05PM
The point of whistle blowing is NOT to tell you shit that you didn't know. The purpose is to address gross injustices that are being covered up. Or, sometimes, less gross injustices.
Do you REALLY need to know that Staff Sergeant Smith has diarhea? You didn't know it, now you know it, and you still don't give a damn.
“Take me to the Brig. I want to see the “real Marines”. – Major General Chesty Puller, USMC
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2015, @04:12PM
No he didn't. He did a bulk grab and dump. If he was true to the motives he's claimed, he would have only taken information related to what he says he cared about. Instead, we have thousands and thousands of unrelated documents taken and given away. He's worked against the interests of US citizens by giving away all the foreign intel information. His fan base, at least in the US, locks only onto the stuff they care about and don't care about the ways they've been screwed over, just like how a Red State Senator keeps getting re-elected even though he consistently votes against the interests of the common person; he says the right things on "hot button" issues that get his constituency worked up, but ultimately have a small effect on their lives.
(Score: 3, Disagree) by Runaway1956 on Friday August 14 2015, @03:02PM
The bitch is a traitor. When I was in the service, anyone who had problems could write their congress critters. I helped a couple people to write their letters. There were ALWAYS results when a congress critter got a letter from one of his constituents.
Did Bradley write to a congress critter? Fuck no. He wasn't looking right a wrong - he was looking to HURT PEOPLE!
“Take me to the Brig. I want to see the “real Marines”. – Major General Chesty Puller, USMC
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2015, @05:46PM
Considering all service members swear an oath to defend the constitution, I consider every last one of them an oathbreaker if there is even a single unconstitutional law on the books they don't bring up arms to take out.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2015, @05:56PM
The bitch is a traitor. When I was in the service, anyone who had problems could write their congress critters. I helped a couple people to write their letters.
Big fucking deal. The proper solution isn't to write to treacherous pigs in congress; the proper thing to do is to hand the information over to the people. You're too focused on the possibility that some people may get hurt (not by the mere release of the documents, but by actions other people take after seeing said information), but that is ultimately overshadowed by the importance of revealing abuses to the *real* proper channel: The People. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't believe in democracy.
This is the same shit people pull with Snowden. "He should have gone through the 'proper channels'!" The People are the proper channel.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Friday August 14 2015, @06:57PM
There were ALWAYS results when a congress critter got a letter from one of his constituents.
Maybe I deserve a big "whoosh" but you can't possibly be serious, can you?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday August 15 2015, @01:21AM
Yes, I am serious. At the very least, a well-written letter to a congress person from a service member causes a letter to be written to that service member's commanding officer. At the most, heads roll over the contents of a well written letter. People who want out almost always get a discharge after writing their congress critter. When someone has exhausted all other appeals, congress has the ultimate authority over each and every officer in the Navy. Perhaps I should point out that each and every officer's commission comes from congress? Ditto with warrant officers, and senior NCO's. The president is the commander in chief, but congress decides who holds rank in the military.
The commanding officer whose troops are constantly writing to congress in protest of his decisions doesn't have much of a future in the military.
“Take me to the Brig. I want to see the “real Marines”. – Major General Chesty Puller, USMC
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Username on Saturday August 15 2015, @01:27AM
There is a huge difference between finding out the NSA is doing something illegal, documenting it, redacting it and publishing it via reputable reporters, and going to an underground IRC chat saying: "I’m a 1337 haxor, here’s my warez, oh shiz the cops, how did they know it was me?"
Snowden is a whistleblower and has my respects because he actually proved the NSA was doing something illegal. Manning just dumped a bunch of files that proved nothing. He did not offer any reasoning for it until after he was caught. What illegal acts did manning uncover besides his own?
(Score: 2) by Lagg on Friday August 14 2015, @02:16PM
Man, you had one of the few good points going in this thread even though english isn't your first language. But then you had to go down the North Korean style "american dogs" path of insults and comparisons of Manning's situation to a war and their fans to soldiers. Are you being any better than our inflammatory US politicians by that point?
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2015, @10:06AM
Demanding respect is a sign of someone to whom respect should surely not be given. It is a sign of someone with an over-inflated sense of their own importance.
I respect people who deserve it. Someone arbitarily put in a position of authority over me does not automatically gain my respect, and, depending on their behaviour, can lose it pretty rapidly.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2015, @10:31AM
As a civilian you can choose who to respect, but military discipline demands automatic respect for the arbitrary chain-of-command. Don't like it? Don't join the military. I know I won't.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2015, @10:47AM
If it is "disrespect" in the military to request a lawyer to help defend you, then they deserve no respect at all. They want (but don't necessarily get) mindless slaves, which is the exact opposite of what is needed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2015, @12:06PM
You NEED me on that wall!
(Score: -1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Friday August 14 2015, @03:09PM
Correction: Bitchly Manning is not in the military. It is a dishonorably discharged felon, subject to the rules and regulations of the penal system. Don't EVER make the mistake of calling that bitch a soldier. It wasn't even a good soldier while it wore the uniform. It was a constant discipline problem.
All you Manning fanboys have forgotten that he ASSAULTED a senior NCO? A female NCO. A real woman. THE BITCH TRIED TO BITCH SLAP A WOMAN - and apparently was knocked on it's ass.
“Take me to the Brig. I want to see the “real Marines”. – Major General Chesty Puller, USMC
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2015, @06:02PM
What the fuck does any of that have to do with my comment?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2015, @02:04PM
Any grunt will tell you there are ways and means of making your feelings shown. Some officers get respect, others get 'respect' where it is obvious to all parties they are only going though the motions, but they are doing nothing they could be pulled up on.
I suspect Chelsea Manning doesn't have the practised skills to do the second type, and may never develop them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2015, @04:05PM
In the military you have to respect the rank, you do not have to respect the person. Subtle but important difference.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Username on Friday August 14 2015, @11:10AM
Well he is a "woman" in a male prison. Probably best to segregate him in order to stop cases of rape or the spread of disease.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2015, @11:49AM
Clearly the best way to do that is to use a form of torture. All for her protection, you see.
(Score: 2) by Username on Saturday August 15 2015, @02:10AM
It’s not torture when it saves someone’s life.
Do you think Manson would be alive today if he wasn’t in solitary?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2015, @01:25PM
Or transfer her to a female prison....
(Score: 2) by AnonymousCowardNoMore on Friday August 14 2015, @04:55PM
Your honour, I'm a woman. Now kindly lock me up with some ladies.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Friday August 14 2015, @06:15PM
The problem with that, is just because she identifies as a female, doesn't mean she doesn't have the equipment of a Male.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 3, Touché) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday August 14 2015, @10:56PM
That's most certainly the case here.
However, it looks like in California, at least, prisoners have better medical coverage than insurance will provide [latimes.com].
So, who knows.
Anyhoo, looks like I'll be advising some trans women I know who can't access any healthcare even with insurance to take a road trip to California and kill a few random people….
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 15 2015, @05:02AM
Now now, let's not be hasty: I'm sure you could come up with a list of people who desperately deserve it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2015, @11:57PM
You seem very concerned. I'm sure you wouldn't mind volunteering a year or two of your life as a test case.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Friday August 14 2015, @12:43PM
It's hard to understand why they keep torturing Chelsea Manning. There's no point to it. She's in prison. I have seen some argue that her punishment scares off potential future whistleblowers, but nobody but our crowd even knows who she is, and among our crowd the odds run heavily toward inciting future hatred and resistance than obeisance. So there's no point to the torture, unless it's Hillary Clinton and her pals venting their natural splenetic vindictiveness on Chelsea.
The power elite of America have a very great deal to answer for, and abusing Chelsea Manning is sure one of them.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Friday August 14 2015, @03:12PM
"Our crowd"?
Uhhhhh - I beg to differ. MY CROWD knows damned good and well who the traitor is. You'll have a hard time finding any active duty and/or veterans who don't know what Manning is. And, many in my crowd would love the opportunity to actually torture the bitch.
“Take me to the Brig. I want to see the “real Marines”. – Major General Chesty Puller, USMC
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2015, @03:22PM
You'll have a hard time finding any active duty and/or veterans who don't know what Manning is. And, many in my crowd would love the opportunity to actually torture the bitch.
My nephew is an army ranger who served two tours in afghanistan.
He vehemently disagrees with you.
Your crowd isn't veterans, its assholes.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Friday August 14 2015, @03:40PM
The information Chelsea Manning provided to Wikileaks kicked off the Arab Spring, which has deposed entrenched dictators from Tunis to the Persian Gulf. Do you consider that to be a bad thing? Or is it that the US govt can do no wrong in your eyes?
Quite often it seems that those who condemn Manning also condemn Snowden. You may not be one such, but perhaps you can give insight into why you consider Manning's actions treachery, and why one might consider Snowden also guilty of that. I cannot understand it, myself, since exposing government crimes and coverups represents to me the highest expression of patriotism and the sacred calling of every person who wants to consider himself free in this world.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Friday August 14 2015, @04:06PM
Insight? I'll try to explain it.
Snowden exposed obvious wrongs - moral, ethical, and legal - committed by the government against common citizens. Snowden was not a soldier when he exposed these wrongs, meaning that he had no chain of command such as Manning had. He did not betray brothers in arms. Snowden released verifiable facts.
Manning, on the other hand, used his "gender confused" status as a weapon against his brothers in arms. He was a discipline problem for a long time before turning traitor. Manning actually assaulted a senior NCO on at least one occassion, and threatened that NCO and others on multiple occassions.
Manning betrayed his brothers in arms. Outright betrayal - his reasons for stealing and disseminating that data included REVENGE against his brothers in arms.
More - much of Mannings shit has been filtered so as to cast relatively innocent people as evil, and to cast less innocent people as even more evil.
That collateral damage video - you've watched it? I'll presume that you have. Did you get the background on that video? No, the chopper crew DID NOT target some random bunch of people, one of whom had a camera. Let's backtrack some months - Reuters intentionally EMBEDDED reporters with combat units fighting in opposition to the US. That's right, embedded reporters, attached to a combat unit, in an attempt to get the scoop that no one else can get.
Our camera crew was actively reporting on an enemy combat unit. Got that?
Just several minutes (that is, less than half an hour) prior to this encounter, US troops on the ground had taken fire from this position. That enemy unit was firing on our soldiers. Combatant units, firing on combatant units - that's how war goes. People are shooting at each other. I have no great animus toward those soldiers killed in the video - they are enemies, but they are doing what enemies are suppposed to do.
So - our ground troops take some fire, they call in air support, air support identifies enemies on the ground with weapons, and opens fire.
DID YOU COUNT THE WEAPONS VISIBLE IN THE VIDEO? I challenge. They are easy to miss. They are difficult to pick out, due to the poor quality of the video. But, you can count five - that is, NO LESS THAN FIVE AK-47 combat rifles in the video.
The camera? Yes, it was indeed mis-identified as a rocket launcher. Perhaps if it had been identified correctly, things would have ended differently. Perhaps - and then again, perhaps not. An enemy combatant unit had been located and identified - the chopper was fully justified in blowing the enemy into eternity.
That sucks - but that's war. That's been the rules for millenia. The Geneva Conventions support those rules.
The van? That was the real shits. The guys in the air couldn't know who was in the van. All that they saw, was that a potential enemy vehicle was rendering assistance to known, identified enemies on the ground. It really, really, REALLY sucked that the occupants of the van included innocent children. Perhaps the adults were also innocent, we can't know at this point. One of those adulst DID TOUCH a weapon at one point. That was unfortunate, because that only increases the chopper crew's readiness to fire.
Bradley stole and released that video, knowing full well that few civilians would understand what they were watching in that video. He released that video to embarrass the army which he had betrayed.
One more time - Snowden is a hero, but Manning is just some prison bitch. Manning is right where he belongs.
“Take me to the Brig. I want to see the “real Marines”. – Major General Chesty Puller, USMC
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday August 14 2015, @04:54PM
Thank you for the explanation. This is much more informative.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2015, @05:48PM
All he's done is regurgitate the Army's own self-exoneration of those events. [turner.com] Don't be so quick to accept it as it were an impartial evaluation or even runaway's own analysis, its the same organization with a history of white-washing cases like abu graib.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday August 14 2015, @06:05PM
Listen to the radio chatter in the video. I've "regurgitated" nothing. Pretty much everything I've stated here is stated in the video. The only thing NOT addressed in the video, is the embedded status of the reporter on the ground.
What's more - you can view the video yourself. Count the men on the ground. Count the weapons. Some have claimed that they see more than the five weapons I count. I'm not real sure - I've counted up to eight, but then, reconsidered that maybe I had already counted some from a different angle. I'm not real sure how many weapons, but there are NO LESS than five. Count the men again. One camera man, with no weapon. One reporter, with no weapon. How many more men? Each man seems to have a weapon. Kinda what you might expect from a combatant unit looking for action, right?
I think you're the one regurgitating nonsense.
“Take me to the Brig. I want to see the “real Marines”. – Major General Chesty Puller, USMC
(Score: 2) by Pav on Saturday August 15 2015, @01:39AM
Are you purposely misunderstanding the issue? Shooting the wrong armed men is what lost the USA any moral standing in Somalia, though most of the men were unarmed in any case and making no obvious hostile action. The official excuse made at the time was that the cameras were misidentified as RPGs, so obviously the AK's weren't seen as a legitimate explanation although maybe later it worked for Fox when talking to people clueless about the context.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Saturday August 15 2015, @02:18AM
"clueless about the context"
May I ask how many battlefields you have seen, up close and personal? Context. I have serious issues with the government that decided to invade Iraq in the first place - but the grunts who went over there and fought the war? I have few issues with the grunts. I have zero issues with the deaths of the reporters in this video. (For the record, I have issues with the CIA and intel, and the way a certain POW prison was run.) Wrong place, at the wrong time. Embedded in an enemy unit, so when that enemy unit is destroyed, oh well - sucks to be embedded, doesn't it?
Context. You should find some clues yourself.
“Take me to the Brig. I want to see the “real Marines”. – Major General Chesty Puller, USMC
(Score: 2) by Pav on Saturday August 15 2015, @05:39AM
I live in an Australian army town with friends who've done their time. One guy (a veteran of Somalia) told me how some US soldiers put a heavy machinegun in the middle of an intersection so they could get around the rules of engagement. They shot the guys moving it out of the way because they were "in control of a heavy weapon". I also somehow ended up playing music with a Somali guy (an ex translator for the US forces) - he had to leave Somalia after the US lost the moral high ground as he was associated with them. Another veteran friend (this time from Afghanistan) said with pride that when a truckload of armed guys drove out to attack his convoy (stationary due to a breakdown) he stepped out, let them see him aim, and saw them off without a shot being fired. The Americans in the convoy yelled at him for not firing, and he simply couldn't believe they were so shortsighted.
There's something seriously wrong with the US armed forces culture - these wars keep being lost because populations turn against them. “Moral courage deserts a man the moment he puts on a uniform"... wrong WAS done here. Maybe the military is just sore they were shown up as such moral cowards by a transvestite.
(Score: 1) by kryptonianjorel on Saturday August 15 2015, @07:39AM
Chelsea Manning is Transgendered, not a transvestite
(Score: 2) by Pav on Saturday August 15 2015, @01:11PM
Thanks for pointing that out... I have more soldier friends than transgendered friends, or so it seems.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday August 15 2015, @01:20PM
"in control of a heavy weapon"
Was this incident ever reported any higher up the chain of command than a squad sergeant? You know, and I know, that no military is ever going to approve of such an action. The risk would be, that a stronger force than expected shows up to take the weapon. In such a case, the officer or NCO who approved the plan would be guilty of aiding and abbetting the enemy by supplying them with heavy weapons. That doesn't even begin to address the moral issues of the situation.
Something tells me this is one of those stories some guy made up, and it got passed around and around and around.
On the other hand, it COULD just be true, if there was a CIA agent in charge . . .
“Take me to the Brig. I want to see the “real Marines”. – Major General Chesty Puller, USMC
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 15 2015, @05:06AM
This is an opinion.
This is presenting something as fact that hasn't been established in what is commonly agreed to be a fair trial.
Should we go on a bit further? You basically write "TRAITOR TRAITOR TRAITOR TRAITOR TRAITOR TRAITOR TRAITOR LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU TRAITOR TRAITOR TRAITOR TRAITOR TRAITOR!"
You take the position that Manning is a traitor, and therefore is a traitor.
How about you do us all a favour, and re-enlist, that way we won't have to hear you say "TRAITOR TRAITOR TRAITOR TRAITOR TRAITOR TRAITOR" until you feel we're all convinced.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 15 2015, @06:50AM
but he didn't. as much as i'd like to support manning on his crusade, there may be some things we aren't seeing.
read his comments again, his outbursts of traitor are mostly emotional, but he does provide some solid arguments for it (unfortunate that he didn't have any supporting links for it though)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2015, @04:24PM
Well, maybe, if you want to go back and try to arbitrarily assign cause/effect. However, others will point out that the whole overthrowing Iraq/Hussein was Wolfowitz's strategy to kick off an Arab democratic uprising. Once democracy was installed in Iraq, the other middle east countries would fall one by one into democratic governments. So why do you consider the Iraq war a bad thing? Do you really support those entrenched dictators that much?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2015, @09:43PM
So why do you consider the Iraq war a bad thing?
Because playing world police is unjust and the ends don't justify the means. And the results speak for themselves.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Friday August 14 2015, @04:54PM
I need to add one thing to my previous post. I mentioned that I had no real animus toward the enemy combatants. I failed to say that I have respect for the camera crew. Those boys went into combat situations, unarmed. Or, rather, armed only with a camera, pens, and pencils. Both the reporter and the cameraman were apparently quite dedicated to their profession. They deserve respect, and it is sad that like others before them, they paid th e ultimate price for taking the risk.
Rest in peace, Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh. Salutes.
“Take me to the Brig. I want to see the “real Marines”. – Major General Chesty Puller, USMC
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2015, @04:23PM
Veteran here. Regular Army, Specialist, Honorable discharge. 16 month tour in Iraq.
While I believe Manning was obviously in the wrong for not properly vetting and redacting the information (unlike Snowden who had assistance from journalists) and I also believe that Manning did it for the most incorrect reasons; I do not believe in torturing anyone for any reason.
Manning is in prison, and will be there for many years. I believe that is suitable punishment alone. I have seen enough pain and suffering in the world, no need to add more.
Many of my veteran friends have expressed similar positions on this matter, please remember you do not speak for all of us.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Friday August 14 2015, @06:10PM
You sound genuine. Apologies. Yeah, sometimes I guess I come across as speaking for all veterans. I know better, you know better, but maybe that's not how it sounds.
I'll point out that Manning wasn't sentenced to solitary confinement. He will only get that solitary as punishment for violating the rules of the prison. If/when he conforms to prison rules, he will probaly come out of solitary. That is pretty much up to him.
Personally, I don't view solitary confinement as "torture". Punishment, yes, torture no.
“Take me to the Brig. I want to see the “real Marines”. – Major General Chesty Puller, USMC
(Score: 2) by tibman on Friday August 14 2015, @02:15PM
It's incorrect to use her rank of Private in one place but not her former rank of Specialist in another. Everyone knows a Private (E1) is the at the bottom. It is often used as a derogatory. She earned the rank of Specialist prior to her reduction to Private so when speaking about her in the past you must use her former rank. To do otherwise is only using her rank as a derogatory and not as a way to identify her.
Anyways! One positive thing that may come from all this is the US Army's policy on transgender soldiers (if you consider equal rights for all a good thing). From the article:
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2015, @05:31PM
If you're going to do things that way, then you need to use "him" and "Bradley" as well.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Friday August 14 2015, @05:59PM
That's fair : )
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Friday August 14 2015, @02:54PM
Yeah, he's a bitch, but he ain't a woman.
“Take me to the Brig. I want to see the “real Marines”. – Major General Chesty Puller, USMC
(Score: 2, Interesting) by bornagainpenguin on Friday August 14 2015, @10:22PM
Not to feed the troll, but do we even have any evidence that Manning actually views himself as being female gendered? Outside confirmable evidence that does not come through military or government channels?
I ask because it could very well be a tactic to dehumanize and mock the man to allege transgenderism as a way to discredit him and to be able to produce newspapers using the feminine pronoun as a way to torture him with the knowledge that the government cover up was so complete they''re calling him a woman now. Sadly I can see our government doing just this....
(Score: 2) by mendax on Friday August 14 2015, @08:08PM
One should question these charges against Chelsea Manning. Except in very few circumstances, prisoners in federal prisons are permitted books and magazines on any subject. Pornography and certain kinds of skin magazines, for example, are forbidden, but pretty much anything can be possessed. Where the books and magazines can be acquired (i.e., from the publisher or a legitimate bookseller) can also be restricted. Some prisons also ban hardcover books under the theory that the covers can be used as armor or things can be easily hidden in the biddings. But there is nothing in the article that tells me that she possessed anything that should raise the hackles of custody staff in any federal or state prison.
It's clear to me that Chelsea Manning is simply being singled out for "special treatment". Fortunately, the ACLU is representing her. That's a good thing.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 15 2015, @02:28AM
Manning isn't in a Federal prison, rather a military prison. Don't assume the rules are the same.
And don't assume "special treatment." Manning is apparently constantly at odds and breaking rules, so it isn't as one-sided as the ACLU and this article make it out to be.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 15 2015, @03:46PM
Yes, he's doing 'bad' things such as requesting a lawyer to help defend him. If that is considered bad in the military, then I wouldn't trust anything they say.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2015, @09:18PM
Not that i think prison should be a cakewalk, as you did commit a crime to get there, but having a book is not allowed? huh?