Dude, are you bipolar and off meds or something? You keep changing sides of your argument and I don't know WTF your point is above.
Cluelessness, meet Alkemyst....Alkemyst, meet cluelessness, your new best friend.
If you seriously think that, you are either trolling or you have no reading comprehension. Which is it?
As a side note, I notice that all the people defending Mannings treatment with excuses like its the military, so it's OK, or he might kill himself, etc.. still can't show one case where another detained serviceman has been treated like this.
Just goes to show that Eaglekeeper, Infohawk and others can't put facts to demonstrate anything, but just silently bail out of the thread then facts are shown to prove their misguided theories wrong. Well done guys, just keep spreading the FUD.
Given that everyone is equal under the law, when you show that someone is getting substantially worse treatment then everyone else, that sure isn't "equal", now isn't it? SO you have to wonder why Manning is singled out for this punishment, when he hasn't even been tried yet. And all you authoritarians do is say "ah, it's OK, he's guilty". Way to throw out our constitution.
Dude, are you bipolar and off meds or something? You keep changing sides of your argument and I don't know WTF your point is above.
You clearly want him dead. /thread.
Do you have any proof that he is being treated poorly?No, but you are clueless. You claimed above that I want him dead. That statement is 100% untrue. Is that clear enough for you. This is your quote:
The fact that your reading comprehension didn't allow you to figure that out is scary.
My claim is that he should be treated like everyone else accused of a crime, and not singled out. So far no one, including infohawk and eaglekeeper, can come up with any valid reason why Manning is being treated more harsh then other accused detainees. And they bailed on the thread when they couldn't provide examples.
That means, among other things, that if a bunch of doctors say he isn't a suicide risk, you don't keep him on suicide precautions. Is that so hard for you to understand?
Your concept of well "just in case" is absurd. By your reasoning ( the guy could change his mind, the docs could be lying), every prisoner needs to be under suicide watch since you can never be 100% certain with anything, let alone this. Hell, by your reasoning, you need to be under suicide watch, since we don't know for sure you won't kill yourself.
Given that all through our country, we rely on professional opinions like this, and then act accordingly off of them, I see no reason why Manning should be different.
Is the system perfect? Of course not. Is is right the overwhelming majorit of the time? Yes. Do mistakes happen? Of course. Can we prevent all of them? Of course not.
So your totally misguided claim that I want him dead is false. Unless you have some secret information about me that I don't even know.
So back to you: Why is Manning being treated so poorly (and worse then other detainees) , when he has yet to be convicted of a crime? Innocent until proven guilty, you know.
My claim is that he should be treated like everyone else accused of a crime, and not singled out. So far no one, including infohawk and eaglekeeper, can come up with any valid reason why Manning is being treated more harsh then other accused detainees. And they bailed on the thread when they couldn't provide examples.
I never said he should be treated more harshly than other "detainees", idiot. I merely pointed out that you are intellectually dishonest. If I bailed it's because you're not really worthy of a debate. You're too stupid to even keep track of what the argument is, as you've displayed here.
<snip>
My claim is that he should be treated like everyone else accused of a crime, and not singled out. So far no one, including infohawk and eaglekeeper, can come up with any valid reason why Manning is being treated more harsh then other accused detainees. And they bailed on the thread when they couldn't provide examples.
<snip>
So back to you: Why is Manning being treated so poorly (and worse then other detainees) , when he has yet to be convicted of a crime? Innocent until proven guilty, you know.
Do you have any proof that he is being treated poorly?
I did not bail for that reason.
You are unable to provided any example where a military person has been accused of this action and been treated differently than Manning.
Where is the baseline.
So how can you state that he is being unjustly treated based on his actions/accused crime?
I state that because he is military; he has an additional guideline that should be followed and civilian rules do not have to apply.
You refuse to acknowledge that the military does not have the civilian standards for military personal nor is required to.
Manning is being treated based on military procedures and is granted civilian representation by law. That does not require the military doing what the civilian representative wants at any given time.
813. ART. 13 PUNISHMENT PROHIBITED BEFORE TRIAL
No person, while being held for trial, may be subjected to punishment or penalty other than arrest or confinement upon the charges pending against him, nor shall the arrest or confinement imposed upon him be any more rigorous than the circumstances required to insure his presence, but he may be subjected to minor punishment during that period for infractions of discipline.
In other words you have no proof. Got it.Let me google that for you
Wow that was really hard, wasn't it? Of you could read his lawyers blog that I posted above, that explained exactly what is going on. Or is reading about facts too difficult?
In other words you have no proof. Got it.
None of that constitutes proof.Just is your definition of proof? Only something that comes out of your mouth or something? Talk about willfull ignorance on your part.
Would you accept his lawyer comments, and official protest, which was upheld? And the disciplining of the brig commander. Those are FACTS, not sure why you are incapable of believing them.
I posted the real UCMJ section that applies to Manning. That is a fact.
It specifically states the only thing you can do is to detain him in order to keep him safe from himself (suicide or similar), safe from others, and to ensure he stands trial (doesn't escape). It specifically does NOT allow you to punish him, since he not convicted of anything.
Holding someone in 23hour solitary does not meet those criteria, at least as proven by any military officials. Doctors state he is not suicidal, and should not be in solitary. No one has stated any legal reason to do this, except you and others with the "he's a traitor" or "he's miitary" or other emotional appeals.
Do you dispute these FACTS? Would like to state facts of your own?
None of that constitutes proof.
So you cite as proof of him being poorly treated the fact that the military is taking extra precaution so that he does not commit (sic?) suicide? And when the commander was relieved nothing was changed? Sounds like you are grasping at straws...Well, OK then. You want to be a willfully ignorant troll, be my guest. Should have guessed from your posting history.
So for Narmer's alternate reality world, this isn't proof.
For the other 99.99% of the world, given that no one disputes his treatment (23 hour solitary), both Manning, Manning's lawyer, and the military all admit this is happening, sounds like a fact to me.
Manning's lawyer protested about the suicide watch, and the military had to revoke it after his protest and the they relieved the brig commander for overstepping his authority. Again, given both parties are in agreement about what happened, it's a fact.
It's a documented fact the the medical doctors have ruled Manning not a suicide risk, and should not be in solitary. You can look up their reports if you want. Sounds like a fact to me.
I posted the UCMJ, thats a fact. No one can still show why Manning's treatment is worse, when it plainly goes against the UCMJ (sorry Eaglekeeper).
Again, do you have any facts? I mean real ones, not fantasy-narmar land ones.
Answers that do not match criterea are not acceptable as answers:\
Trying to prove something that does not exist works both ways.
So you cite as proof of him being poorly treated the fact that the military is taking extra precaution so that he does not commit (sic?) suicide? And when the commander was relieved nothing was changed? Sounds like you are grasping at straws...
813. ART. 13 PUNISHMENT PROHIBITED BEFORE TRIAL
No person, while being held for trial, may be subjected to punishment or penalty other than arrest or confinement upon the charges pending against him, nor shall the arrest or confinement imposed upon him be any more rigorous than the circumstances required to insure his presence, but he may be subjected to minor punishment during that period for infractions of discipline.
By way of background, PFC Manning was transferred to the Quantico Brig on July 29, 2010. Upon his arrival, he was placed in MAX custody and under suicide risk. On August 6, 2010, the forensic psychiatrist for the Brig recommended that he be moved from suicide risk to POI watch. That recommendation was followed and PFC Manning was moved to POI watch. Due to his improvement and adjustment to confinement, on August 27, 2010, the Brigs forensic psychiatrist recommended that PFC Manning be taken off of POI watch and that his confinement classification be changed from MAX to Medium Custody In (MDI).
Over the course of the following three months, two separate forensic psychiatrists consistently stated that there was no medical reason for PFC Manning to be under POI watch. The only exception to this was on December 10, 2010 when it was recommended that PFC Manning remain under POI watch for one week. The following week, the forensic psychiatrist once again recommended that PFC Manning be removed from POI watch. Despite these consistent recommendations, PFC Manning has remained on POI watch and in MAX custody.
On January 18, 2011, over the recommendation of two forensic psychiatrists, the commander of the Quantico Brig, CWO4 Averhart, placed PFC Manning under suicide risk. The suicide risk assignment meant that PFC Manning was required to remain in his cell for 24 hours a day. He was stripped of all clothing with the exception of his underwear. His prescription eyeglasses were taken away from him. He was forced to sit in essential blindness with the exception of the times that he was reading or given limited television privileges. During those times, his glasses were returned to him. Additionally, there was always a guard sitting outside of his cell watching him.
Answers that do not match criterea are not acceptable as answers:\
Trying to prove something that does not exist works both ways.
Not really sure what your post means.
I posted that link as a resource for others because it explains pretty well what parts of the constitution are applicable to military law. Answer: apparently not much.
None of this proves he is being treated poorly.Should I use small words for you?
Let's start with the UCMJ:
Read this first and understand it,especially the post I bolded. You do understand what that means, right? That the military cannot do anything over and above what is needed to present the accused safely at the trial. Nothing.
Do you want to reject this as factual as well? Got it so far?
Read this description of events, which both Mannings lawyer and the military both do NOT dispute (as in they both accept it as true):
The military medical professionals say he should NOT be in POI confinement, and should be placed in medium confinement. (bold mine again). So you contention is 100% wrong and no-factual. He has been held for ~5 months in POI confinement while all medical experts have said he should be moved. Hmm, kinda puts BS all over your idea.
The official military doctors have said there is no reason for POI, and have said move him to medium confinement. Again, the military does not dispute this, it is fact. The doctors reports are statements of fact, they are not up for debate. And again, they recommended it 5 months ago.
So again, given the UCMJ clearly states you cannot punish a detainee, why is he singled out and being punished with this treatment?
You can not claim suicide or medical reasons, since the military docs have officially stated mulptiple times that he is not suicidal.
Now others (alkemyst, eaglekeeper, you) can try various "what ifs" to try and rationalize the treatment, and can also try various emotional appeals (he's guilty, he's a traitor, etc..). But the undisputed facts are as above.
So what where you saying again? Something about they thought he was as suicide risk? Sorry that argument is demonstrably false, as shown by real military doctors.
And since you obviously are ignorant to this, since you haven't read any of the links, the brig commander re-instated the suicide watch, which prompted the official complaint, and the military had to remove Manning from the suicide watch, and relieved the brig commander for overstepping his authority. So you can't even get that straight. Again, statement of fact.
Hmm, so basically everything you wrote is false or otherwise untrue. Why am I not surprised?
Do you have any real facts to discuss, or are you just going to either bail like the others when your arguments are shown to be false, or are you going to randomly post lies and untruths?
Solitary confinement in the Quantico brig isn't punishment, hard labor for life in Leavenworth Prison is punishment.
None of this proves he is being treated poorly.
It actually may be for his own safety.