American torture leaves Bradley Manning catatonic
- Thread starter CUBert
- Start date
This poor kid acted impulsively, and now will pay for this huge mistake for the rest of his miserable life. His future is either suicide or murder.
More broadly, the fact that this stupid kid was in a position to do this kind of damage means that America's allies can't trust the US with sensitive information. As someone from a previous incarnation of America, this is all quite unbelievable. The country is FUBAR.
Funny, this guy has not even been charged, let alone convicted and you clowns are wanting him shot. He didn't even have enough clearance to leak all that he is being accused of leaking according to some reports, so he obviously was not the only one, if he had anything to do with it at all. Sounds like he is nothing more than a scape goat for the real perps, but he is already dead to you guys. Sounds like the country deserves to be FUBARed.
Do ya see why deterrents don't work? Bunch of softies that's why! Put him in for 8 hour days of Celine and then and evening with Andy Dick, you'll have your deterrent by God! For your lack of will I sentence all of you to a Gilbert Gottfried reading of 75 Exciting Vegetables For Your Garden By Jack Staub. Bare not thy bloodless fang, lest my cane find your backside!
It would if you knew our armed forces.
Just some of the charges he is charged with. Ok, we try him then shoot him.
SPECIFICATION 1: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 1 November 2009 and on or about 27 May 2010, wrongfully and wantonly cause to be published on the internet intelligence belonging to the United States government, having knowledge that intelligence published on the internet is accessible to the enemy, such conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
SPECIFICATION 2: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 15 February 2010 and on or about 5 April 2010, having unauthorized possession of information relating to the national defense, to wit: a video file named “12 JUL 07 CZ ENGAGEMENT ZONE 30 GC Anyone-avi“, with reason to believe such information could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicate, deliver, transmit, or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, the said information, to a person not entitled to receive it, in violation of 18 U.S. Code Section 793 (e), such conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
SPECIFICATION 3: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Amy, did, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 22 March 2010 and on or about 26 March 2010, having unauthorized possession of information relating to the national defense, to wit: more than one classified memorandum produced by a United States government intelligence agency, with reason to believe such information could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicate, deliver, transmit, or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, the said information, to a person not entitled to receive it, in violation of 18 U.S. Code Section 793(e), such conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
SPECIFICATION 4: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 31 December 2009 and on or about 5 January 2010, steal, purloin, or knowingly convert to his use or the use of another, a record or thing of value of the United States or of a department or agency thereof, to wit: the Combined Information Data Network Exchange Iraq database containing more than 380,000 records belonging to the United States government, of a value of more than $1,000, in violation of 18 U.S. Code Section 641, such conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
SPECIFICATION 5: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 31 December 2009 and on or about 9 February 2010, having unauthorized possession of information relating to the national defense, to wit: more than twenty classified records from the Combined Information Data Network Exchange Iraq database, with reason to believe such information could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicate, deliver, transmit, or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, the said information, to a person not entitled to receive it, in violation of 18 U.S. Code Section 793(e), such conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
SPECIFICATION 6: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 31 December 2009 and on or about 8 January 2010, steal, purloin, or knowingly convert to his use or the use a£ another, a record or thing of value of the United States or of a department or agency thereof, to wit: the Combined Information Data Network Exchange Afghanistan database containing more than 90,000 records belonging to the United States government, of a value of more than $1,000, in violation of 18 U.S. Code Section 641, such conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
SPECIFICATION 7: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 31 December 2009 and on or about 9 February 2010, having unauthorized possession of information relating to the national defense, to wit: more than twenty classified records from the Combined Information Data Network Exchange Afghanistan database, with reason to believe such information could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicate, deliver, transmit, or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, the said information, to a person not entitled to receive it, in violation of 18 U.S. Code Section 793(e), such conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
SPECIFICATION 8: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Planning, U.S. Army, did, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, on or about 8 March 2010, steal, purloin, or knowingly convert to his use or the use of another, a record or thing of value of the united States or of a department or agency thereof, to wit: a United States Southern Command database containing more than 700 records belonging to the United States government, of a value of more than $1,000, in violation of 18 U.S. Code Section 641, such conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
SPECIFICATION 9: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 8 March 2010 and on or about 27 May 2010, having unauthorized possession of information relating to the national defense, to wit: more than three classified records from a United States Southern Command database, with reason to believe such information could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicate, deliver, transmit, or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, the said information, to a person not entitled to receive it, in violation of 18 U.S. Code Section 793(e), such conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
SPECIFICATION 10: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U-S. Army, did, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 11 April 2010 and on or about 27 May 2010, having unauthorized possession of information relating to the national defense, to wit: more than five classified records relating to a military operation in Farah Province, Afghanistan occurring on or about 4 May 2009, with reason to believe such information could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicate, deliver, transmit, or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, the said information, to a person not entitled to receive it, in violation of 18 U.S. Code Section 793(e), such conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
SPECIFICATION 11: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 1 November 2009 and on or about 8 January 2010, having unauthorized possession of information relating to the national defense, to wit: a file named “BE22 PAX.zip” containing a video named “BE22 PAX.wmv”, with reason to believe such information could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicate, deliver, transmit, or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, the said information, to a person not entitled to receive it, in violation of 18 U.S. Code Section 793(e), such conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
SPECIFICATION 12: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 28 March 2010 and on or about 4 May 2010, steal, purloin, or knowingly convert to his use or the use of another, a record or thing of value of the United states or of a department or agency thereof, to wit: the Department of State Net-Centric Diplomacy data base containing more than 250,000 records belonging to the United States government, of a value of more than $1,000, in violation of 18 U.S. Code Section 641, such conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
SPECIFICATION 13: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 28 March 2010 and on or about 27 May 2010, having knowingly exceeded authorized access on a Secret Internet Protocol Router Network computer, and by means of such conduct having obtained information that has been determined by the United States government pursuant to an Executive Order or statute to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national defense or foreign relations, to wit: more than seventy-five classified United States Department of State cables, willfully communicate, deliver, transmit, or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the said information, to a person not entitled to receive it, with reason to believe that such information so obtained could be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, in violation of 18 U.S. Code Section 1030(a)(1), such conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
SPECIFICATION 14: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 15 February 2010 and on or about 18 February 2010, having knowingly exceeded authorized access on a Secret Internet Protocol Router Network computer, and by means of such conduct having obtained information that has been determined by the United States government pursuant to an Executive Order or statute to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national defense or foreign relations, to wit: a classified Department of State cable titled “Reykjavik-13″, willfully communicate, deliver, transmit, or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the said information, to a person not entitled to receive it, with reason to believe that such information so obtained could be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, in violation of 18 U.S. Code Section 1030(a)(1),such conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
SPECIFICATION 15: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 15 February 2010 and on or about 15 March 2010, having unauthorized possession of information relating to the national defense, to wit: a classified record produced by a United States Amy intelligence organization, dated 18 March 2008, with reason to believe such information could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicate, deliver, transmit, or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, the said information, to a person not entitled to receive it, in violation of 18 U.S. Code Section 793(e),such conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
SPECIFICATION 16: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 11 May 2010 and on or about 27 May 2010, steal, purloin, or knowingly convert to his use or the use of another, a record or thing of value of the united States or of a department or agency thereof, to wit: the United States Forces -Iraq Microsoft Outlook / SharePoint Exchange Server global address list belonging to the United States government, of a value of more than $1,000, in violation of 18 U.S. Code Section 641, such conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
ADDITIONAL CHARGE III: VIOLATION OF THE UCMJ, ARTICLE 92.
SPECIFICATION I: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 1 November 2009 and on or about 8 March 2010, violate a lawful general regulation, to wit: paragraph 4-5(a) (4) , Army Regulation 25-2, dated 24 October 2007, by attempting to bypass network or information system security mechanisms.
SPECIFICATION 2: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Amy, did, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 11 February 2010 and on or about 3 April 2010, violate a lawful general regulation, to wit: paragraph 4-5 (a)(3), Army Regulation 25-2, dated 24 October 2007, by adding unauthorized software to a Secret Internet Protocol Router Network computer.
SPECIFICATION 3: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, on or about 4 May 2010, violate a lawful general regulation, to wit: paragraph 4-5(a) (3),Army Regulation 25-2, dated 24 October 2007, by adding unauthorized software to a Secret Internet Protocol Router Network computer.
SPECIFICATION 4: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 11 May 2010 and on or about 27 May 2010, violate a lawful general regulation, to wit: paragraph 4-5(a)(3), Army Regulation 25-2, dated 24 October 2007, by using an information system in a manner other than its intended purpose,
SPECIFICATION 5: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, on divers occasions between on or about 1 November 2009 and on or about 27 May 2010, violate a lawful general regulation, to wit: paragraph 7-4, Army Regulation 380-5, dated 29 September 2000 by wrongfully storing classified information.
Make no mistake, Americans have as much right to be on this forum as anyone else, and not a single member on here deserves to be addressed the way you addressed Eaglesmack in that post.
Canada doesn't exist in a vacuum. We have people traveling in and out of our country every day, immigrating here, vacationing here, working here temporarily, from virtually every nation under the sun. They all develop an opinion, ESPECIALLY when they notice us commenting on their countries (and when it comes to the US, often in bad light). They have as much right as you to voice an opinion, and if you go off like that when they do, you will not last on here.
Again... he is being yelled at in a Marine Brig. That is not torture. BUT... to folks like you, being yelled at is torture.
I missed it!
First off it is not YOUR website. It is a Canadian website of which I am proud to be a member of being from Canadian descent.
Secondly I've been a member on this website since 2005... you just got here.
Now I've read the article and all that you have submitted.
Where does it say he has to stand up all day or walk in circles for over six months?
Are the facts not enough?
Naaah....I'll raise you;-)
To torture a left-winger.......
Put a tv in his cell, and force him to watch Glenn Beck every day
I guarantee that within a month he will either convert to republican....or confess to everything....or both:lol:
From what I can gather he broke the law and as a military person he must have signed a paper saying that he would not disclose any information he was privy to. So he is a traitor and deserves to be punished. As for torture some leftards and terrorist apologists have a pretty loose definition of torture. They might be messing with his mind a bit but not torture. has he had a cattle prod stuffed up his a$$? Splinters under his fingernails? Tied to a post and whipped? Cigarettes snubbed out in his eyes? Since the answer too all of these appears to be no then he has not been tortured.
Naaah....I'll raise you;-)
To torture a left-winger.......
Put a tv in his cell, and force him to watch Glenn Beck every day
I guarantee that within a month he will either convert to republican....or confess to everything....or both:lol:
It would also work for an extreme right winger - fed that BS from Beck all day hard to swallow after the 1st hour or 2 - they would have to stop swallowing or explode and then the shxt would be everywhere. As we all know shxt splatters
Before you are given a clearance to handle Confidential material of any kind that is EXACTLY what you do. You sign a paper that says you will not disclose any bit of what you see and hear. It also states that you will be arrested and brought up on charges if you disclose anything.
Their ideals collide with facts at times. They applaud what he did and believe he should be set free. So... ANYTHING they do becomes torture to them.
Keeping him in solitary becomes torture to them.
Yelling at him becomes torture to them.
Nah Goober. Feed us Keith Obelmen and that would drive us mad.
But the problem is you are not an extreme right wing type. My opinion. But anyone forced to listen to hours on end of Larry King - well that would drive anyone nuts.
Oh yes... Larry King cuts across the political spectrum like fingernails down a chalkboard.
Some of you need to learn about what life in "seg" or lack of it does to the human body and mind.
If you pay attention to the news you'd have learned that yesterday Canada finally dropped "seg" for women because it was cruel.
One step, but it's a step.
Prisons to end rare solitary-confinement protocol for women
The Correctional Service of Canada says it will soon abandon a rarely used, but highly controversial program that allows female inmates deemed "high risk" to be placed in segregation for indefinite periods.
The service has also acknowledged that two women are still under "management protocol."
Prisoners in the program can find themselves held in isolation for months at a time, with severe restrictions on their movement. The government introduced the program in 2003 following a series of violent incidents at prisons, including hostage-takings. There is no equivalent program for male prisoners.
Critics have said that such prolonged isolation can be "psychologically crippling" to a prisoner. Earlier this month, a civil-liberties group filed a lawsuit on behalf of a Saskatchewan woman serving time in a B.C. prison, alleging that she was kept in solitary confinement for the better part of three years. It called the practice "cruel, inhuman and degrading."
Suzanne Leclerc, a correctional service spokeswoman, declined to comment on the lawsuit. However, in an email to Postmedia News, she said the government is committed to "moving away" from management protocol and that a new approach "should be implemented in the spring of 2011." She declined to offer details about the new approach.
She did note, however, that of the seven women across Canada who have been subjected to the protocol since 2003, only two remain.
Canada's correctional watchdog said while he is pleased the government is moving away from the practice, it's something that should've happened a long time ago.
In his 2008-09 annual report, Howard Sapers, the correctional investigator of Canada, said the program should be "immediately rescinded."
"I have very serious concerns about the impact of this form of harsh and punitive confinement on the mental health and emotional well-being of these women," he wrote at the time. "They need intervention and treatment, not deprivation."
Sapers says rather than taking a blanket approach to dealing with the small group of high-risk female inmates, the government ought to provide a more individualized response that takes into account each of their "complex needs," particularly their mental-health needs.
Segregation, he adds, should only be used in exceptional cases, for very limited durations, and for well-defined reasons.
Those recommendations were echoed in a May 2010 report produced by the correctional service following a series of consultations with various experts.
There seemed to be a consensus, the report said, that the correctional service needed to be more flexible when dealing with problem inmates and that the current policy of "zero tolerance" toward aggressive behaviour was too rigid and didn't take into account the fact that it takes time for offenders to unlearn certain bad behaviours.
The B.C. Civil Liberties Association threw itself into the debate earlier this month when it filed a lawsuit on behalf of BobbyLee Worm, who is serving a six-year, four-month sentence for robbery and assault at B.C.'s Fraser Valley Institution.
According to the claim, Worm, 24, was placed in segregation in 2008 after getting into fights with other inmates and was confined to a 2 1/2-by-three-metre isolation cell for up to 23 hours each day with very limited access to counselling services, despite suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and depression.
It wasn't only until November that Worm was finally allowed to interact with other inmates again, said Grace Pastine, the civil liberties association's litigation director.
The lawsuit alleges that the practice of indefinite solitary confinement is unconstitutional, depriving inmates of their charter rights to liberty and security and subjecting them to cruel and unusual punishment.
It asserts that the rules for getting off the management protocol are vague and that it can be "exceedingly difficult" for female prisoners to earn their way back to normal prison conditions.
Further, the association claims prolonged solitary confinement "can create mental illness where none previously existed and can exacerbate pre-existing illness, ultimately leaving individuals more damaged."
If you pay attention to the news you'd have learned that yesterday Canada finally dropped "seg" for women because it was cruel.
One step, but it's a step.
Prisons to end rare solitary-confinement protocol for women
The Correctional Service of Canada says it will soon abandon a rarely used, but highly controversial program that allows female inmates deemed "high risk" to be placed in segregation for indefinite periods.
The service has also acknowledged that two women are still under "management protocol."
Prisoners in the program can find themselves held in isolation for months at a time, with severe restrictions on their movement. The government introduced the program in 2003 following a series of violent incidents at prisons, including hostage-takings. There is no equivalent program for male prisoners.
Critics have said that such prolonged isolation can be "psychologically crippling" to a prisoner. Earlier this month, a civil-liberties group filed a lawsuit on behalf of a Saskatchewan woman serving time in a B.C. prison, alleging that she was kept in solitary confinement for the better part of three years. It called the practice "cruel, inhuman and degrading."
Suzanne Leclerc, a correctional service spokeswoman, declined to comment on the lawsuit. However, in an email to Postmedia News, she said the government is committed to "moving away" from management protocol and that a new approach "should be implemented in the spring of 2011." She declined to offer details about the new approach.
She did note, however, that of the seven women across Canada who have been subjected to the protocol since 2003, only two remain.
Canada's correctional watchdog said while he is pleased the government is moving away from the practice, it's something that should've happened a long time ago.
In his 2008-09 annual report, Howard Sapers, the correctional investigator of Canada, said the program should be "immediately rescinded."
"I have very serious concerns about the impact of this form of harsh and punitive confinement on the mental health and emotional well-being of these women," he wrote at the time. "They need intervention and treatment, not deprivation."
Sapers says rather than taking a blanket approach to dealing with the small group of high-risk female inmates, the government ought to provide a more individualized response that takes into account each of their "complex needs," particularly their mental-health needs.
Segregation, he adds, should only be used in exceptional cases, for very limited durations, and for well-defined reasons.
Those recommendations were echoed in a May 2010 report produced by the correctional service following a series of consultations with various experts.
There seemed to be a consensus, the report said, that the correctional service needed to be more flexible when dealing with problem inmates and that the current policy of "zero tolerance" toward aggressive behaviour was too rigid and didn't take into account the fact that it takes time for offenders to unlearn certain bad behaviours.
The B.C. Civil Liberties Association threw itself into the debate earlier this month when it filed a lawsuit on behalf of BobbyLee Worm, who is serving a six-year, four-month sentence for robbery and assault at B.C.'s Fraser Valley Institution.
According to the claim, Worm, 24, was placed in segregation in 2008 after getting into fights with other inmates and was confined to a 2 1/2-by-three-metre isolation cell for up to 23 hours each day with very limited access to counselling services, despite suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and depression.
It wasn't only until November that Worm was finally allowed to interact with other inmates again, said Grace Pastine, the civil liberties association's litigation director.
The lawsuit alleges that the practice of indefinite solitary confinement is unconstitutional, depriving inmates of their charter rights to liberty and security and subjecting them to cruel and unusual punishment.
It asserts that the rules for getting off the management protocol are vague and that it can be "exceedingly difficult" for female prisoners to earn their way back to normal prison conditions.
Further, the association claims prolonged solitary confinement "can create mental illness where none previously existed and can exacerbate pre-existing illness, ultimately leaving individuals more damaged."
Let's call a spade a spade here.... Confinement (against one's will) under any circumstance will yield negative consequences in terms of physical and emotional well being, this is not a circumstance exclusive to solitary confinement.
But this leads us back to the original issue of people that break the law. Further, let's not be too quick to forget that the victims of crime also suffer significant emotional and physical ramifications as well.
There is a difference between solitary and '"seg". In solitary you can talk and interact with other people in "seg" you don't get any interaction with other humans. None. Nada. Zip.
I have no doubt that Solitary or "Seg" (meaning segregation correct) is mentally draining. Locked in a cell 23 hours of 24 would be to me.
On the flip side... I would not dream of passing out confidential material to be posted on the internet for the world to see. If I DID happen to do that I would know that my future life would be spent behind bars and possibly in segregation.
But not cruel for men?
Ok. Understood. Bradley Manning is in Solitary... not SEG.
This kid doesn't qualify as a treasonous. Dip**** indeed but he's no traitor.
If he isn't allowed to speak with a lawyer or family or other inmates he is in seg not solitary.
Nope. Corrections Canada only did this for the women. Nice huh?
But he is allowed. That is how they got the information out that he is being "tortured". He is speaking to a lawyer, etc. The torture accusations came from a man (other than his lawyer) who went to visit.
Furthermore... One of the accusations of torture is him having to step out of his cell in the buff each morning in front of his fellow inmates. He is kept nude at night because he is on suicide watch.
Sounds like Solitary to me. What say you?
He has it easier than the native women in Canada. (Not one white woman has been put in the same circumstances)