Skip to main content

Today's Poll: Is Bradley Manning being treated fairly by the U.S. military?

By Howard B. Owens
Jeff Allen

How would anyone except those assigned to where he is being held know the answer to that question. Any other speculation is based on the source and the filters through which we listen.

Jan 11, 2011, 11:48am Permalink
John Roach

Terry,
Manning broke Military Law (allegedly), so being held in prison is appropriate until trail. He was not a private citizen and this is not a freedom of speech issue, this was a criminal violation (alleged).

Jan 11, 2011, 12:36pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

The issue isn't him being held for trial. That's reasonable. It's the inhumane and cruel conditions in which he's being kept. It violates the basic principles of a free society.

Jan 11, 2011, 12:49pm Permalink
terry paine

John, I'm sure you also believe that the innocent people killed in the helicopter video where collateral damage.He's a hero for allowing people of this county to understand whats happening over there.

Jan 11, 2011, 12:55pm Permalink
Dave Olsen

Irregardless of his perceived guilt or not John; there should be no parenthesis around "alleged" it is in fact alleged at this point. If you read the article Howard linked to, how could you possibly think his treatment is OK? Howard is right, this kind of treatment violates all of our rights. Read the article John, all of it. Greenwald asks, "would you be a whistle-blower if you knew you would be locked up and treated like this?" This government is becoming more and more totalitarian every day. Eric Holder is trying to force twitter to release records of an Icelandic member of parliament who used to be a Wiki-Leaks volunteer. Who the hell do we think we are? the world police?

Jan 11, 2011, 1:33pm Permalink
John Roach

Dave,
I put the (alleged) because he has not been proven guilty. The use of the parenthesis was totaly arbitrary.

I also hope Iceland tells Eric Holder to put his request where the sun does not shine. And I also don't think Wiki-Leaks did anything wrong by publishing what was given them. The guy who runs Wiki-Leaks is not a US national, so unless he stole the information, he did nothing wrong in my own opinion.

I do believe Manning broke the UCMJ, and if found guilty, I think he should go to a military prison.

I don't know how he's being treated until some outside group, or Congressional visit confirms it one way or the other.

Terry,
Even if you consider Manning a hero, he is still accused of breaking the law. He can be your hero and be a convict at the same time.

Jan 11, 2011, 2:31pm Permalink
Bob Harker

He committed treason. Put him at Gitmo, try him, and when found guilty, hang him.

Paine, civilian casualties are a part of war. Please name any conflict in the history of our planet that did not result in same.

Your contention that this scum is a hero is naive at best and seditious at worst. I suppose you have McVeigh's picture on your living room wall.

We should have learned in Vietnam that civilian involvement in armed conflict is GREATLY exasperated when politicians try to run a sterile war out of Washington but we did not.

War is ugly. People die. People are maimed. Nonetheless, war is sometimes necessary. Let the politicians come up with the objectives, give them to the commanders, and get out of the way. Forget anti-productive "rules of engagement. Both Iraq wars and Afghanistan would have been successful, with less casualties on BOTH side had politicians not impeded our military's' efforts.

Jan 11, 2011, 3:03pm Permalink
Dave Olsen

I think we are on the same page, John. I also think an investigation into how he is being treated is a good idea.

Bob; "War is Hell" true, which is why we should avoid it. It also is not an excuse for callously taking civilian lives.

Jan 11, 2011, 3:39pm Permalink
Jeff Allen

Then why didn't you link the article to the poll question. I looked for it and had to assume it was just a general question. Now that I have read the article, I find no evidence of cruel and inhumane punishment. Manning was apparently a soldier with an agenda and for all we know so could Lt. Villard. Salon.com is well known as liberal and Lt. Villard is quoted once in the article, the rest is Salon's liberal take on an issue cherry-picking research to hold up it's point. I stick by my asertion of filters and sources. Some would consider anything shy of the Taj Mahal as cruel while others would consider conditions far worse than he is in perfectly acceptable. A Salon.com article is not going to give us the insight needed to draw a reasonable conclusion.
Funny thing is, Lt Villard had very different things to say in this article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101217/pl_afp/usdiplomacywikileaksinterne…
Can't both be true, or is Salon.com cooking the statements?

Jan 11, 2011, 4:09pm Permalink
Jeremiah Pedro

He is accused and charged with releasing classified information. The video he sent to wikkileaks is classified regardless of whether it shows alleged war crimes or not.

The journalist were not on assignment at the local kennel clubs annual dog show. That being said I'm quite sure they assumed there would be risks to their lives during the assignment to a war zone.

I remember watching the video back when it was first released. The group were carrying weapons, the journalist were carrying cameras. I don't care what any of you who have never had a weapon pointed at you in a war zone think.
The Soldiers on the ground called that helo in for air support. They did just what they were asked to do. support the guys on the ground.

Jan 11, 2011, 4:48pm Permalink
terry paine

Bob,If you want to go to war then fine. I find most of the wars this county has been involved in immoral. If your wars are so necessary then you and you war loving friends finance them. I am having a harder and harder time sending in thousands of dollars every year to help kill innocent people.

Jan 11, 2011, 4:59pm Permalink
Bob Harker

@H.O.

Among the charges so far:

* One specification of violating United States Code Title 18, Section 793, for communicating, transmitting and delivering national defense information to an unauthorized source;
* Three specifications of violating United States Code Title 18, Section 1030(a)(1), for disclosing classified information concerning the national defense with reason to believe that the information could cause injury to the United States; and
* Four specifications of violating United States Code Title 18, Section 1030(a)(2), for exceeding authorized computer access to obtain classified information from a United States department or agency.

As reflected in charge 1, the ONLY reason it is not an actual treason charge is because Assange has not been deemed to be an enemy to the the United States - although I believe he should be.

Re: pretrial accommodations, where would you suggest? Or should he be released pending trial?

@Dav: I think you missed my point. What I was trying to express was that once our government declares war, they should simply get out of the way and let the commanders **that are trained in such matters** do their jobs. The end result would be far less casualties on both sides. Political interests prolong the process. I am not an advocate of war in anyway. I do, however, believe that if we are in it we should be in it to win, and silence those that are more concerned with political gain.

Jan 11, 2011, 4:57pm Permalink
Jeremiah Pedro

Terry,

In your opinion, what is the last war or military action that the US was or is involved in do you consider to be moral?

Jan 11, 2011, 5:35pm Permalink
Bob Harker

T Pain:

"My" wars, as you so condescendingly call them, are begun by "our" government.

I am merely stating that once these decisions are made, politicians should get out of the way.

I'd also add that your arrogance is second only to your naivete. Which idyllic, peaceful, "Eden" type country would you prefer to live in? There is nothing preventing you from going there. I truly doubt though that your disagreeing with "Eden's" government would allow such criticism though - a freedom you obviously take for granted. One of many freedoms we enjoy that were established by and are maintained by the same military that you denigrate.

Michael Moore must be one of your heroes.

Jan 11, 2011, 9:39pm Permalink
jonathan bell

ok i cant take it anymore. when a soldier in the U.S. Army APPLIES for a secret clearance he/she must fill out certain forms and AGREE to punishments set forth before all of us were born. By him disclosing this information he violated the oath he took and SIGNED. a sipr computer is VERY protected and hes in what the Army calls pre-trial confinment which the Army uses daily when ANYONE isa risk of leaving the country. asfar as cruel and inhumane punishment hes alive he idnt being tortured so whats thhe big deal? his living conditions now are better then 1000's of soldiers whoh have been to afghanistan who have slept 4 people in a truck wearing 120lbs of gear. there were many time i would have loved to be where he is and he conpromised the safety of interpreters and informates which in turn compromises AMERICAN lives. and about "collateral damage" if a man fires an RPG is a service memeber from within a crowd and thatservice member returns fire kills 4 taliban and one civilian was he right? if he didnt return fire to defend himself could more american men and women been killed? so please untill you know the sound ofa bullet/rpg/mortor sailing past your head of hitting your best friend in the chest dont worry about the military support those men and women. therer over 1000000 people in the Army alone and you get what 5 maybe bad apples.at least they had the courage to stand up and allow you to drive down main stgrab groceries at Tops and a bite to eat south side deli without having to worry if your family was going to be killed

Jan 12, 2011, 1:05am Permalink
Frank Cook

The idea that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are for our freedoms is probably one of the more bizarre things I've heard.

The affects of solitary confinement on the human mind have been documented well enough that we should know that it constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment".

As for the soldier's moral conundrum, it would be a non-issue if we didn't try to unilaterally topple governments on a whim. I respect soldiers; they have a hard job. But they know exactly what the risks of their jobs are when they sign up. I think their job is even harder now, and I think that our government has put them in an unreasonable position. The fact that they have to kill so many civilians to be successful is really a terrible thing for everyone.

Jan 12, 2011, 3:01am Permalink
Bea McManis

Just a note about access to documents that are "top secret".
I used to attend meetings and classes, in DC, for a computer system we shared with the government.
There were techs and others from the White House, the Senate; the House, the World Bank; and all branches of the armed forces, etc. who attended these meetings/classes as well as people from private business.
I couldn't believe how often an example of a problem would come up on the screen that made one wonder if we should have access to the information we were seeing.
These people were so focused on the technical issues, they seem to overlook that they were presenting information that shouldn't be shared.
Anyone in one of those classes could easily make that information public, if they wanted.
I'm not absolving this soldier for what he did. I find it reprehensible.
I am saying that top secret information, sometimes isn't.

Jan 12, 2011, 8:48am Permalink
Jeremiah Pedro

Frank,

I don't think that any service member currently in Afghanistan or having previously served in Afghanistan or awaiting deployment to Afghanistan is under any illusion that the campaign in that country is for anything beside retribution for the event that took place in 2001 in lower Manhattan.

Iraq is another animal entirely. That was a job that should have been completed back in 1991 and then again in 1998 but the people in power did not have the "balls", for lack of a better word, to do what should have been done.

Who ever thinks that Manning's pre-trial is cruel or inhumane or even amounts to torture I ask you this, what alternative would you recommend?

Jan 12, 2011, 10:32am Permalink
C. M. Barons

"I am merely stating that once these decisions are made, politicians should get out of the way."

"What I was trying to express was that once our government declares war, they should simply get out of the way and let the commanders **that are trained in such matters** do their jobs."

One of the top ten indicators of human perfection would be the absence of war. Asserting that the governing body that declares war should not participate in its execution smacks of fatalism.

Those who serve in the military remain bound to codes of morality and ethics that transcend the campaign. Right and wrong is universal, not modeled to uniform. We've visited this dilemma: the Nuremberg Trials and the trial of Lt. William Calley. The result has been the same. Personal responsibility does not fade in time of war.

An order does not absolve a soldier from responsible conduct- just as a war does not preclude responsible action on the part of governments.

If Manning distributed classified information, two conditions can be assumed true. He had reason for doing so. He understood the consequences.

Punishment phase should not predate trial.

Jan 12, 2011, 2:17pm Permalink
John Roach

CM,
You missed the point. The war should be managed by civilians to a point. What he was trying to say is that the President and others should not pick which target gets hit on a given day, what area gets patrolled, or when a squad can return fire.

You might remember that was what LBJ did in Viet Nam. He was picking the daily bombing targets. Politicians thousands of miles away should not micro manage a fire fight. A soldier should not have to call a lawyer to ask if he can return fire.

Nuremberg is an odd example. The politicians who ran the war were put on trail along with the military who did what the civilians told them to do. While that was no defense for the military to commit crimes, it was a civilian policy that created the German war crimes, not a military one.

Jan 12, 2011, 3:21pm Permalink
Jeremiah Pedro

C.M.

I'll ask you what should be done with Manning leading up to his trial? The Army is not just going to release him on his own recognizance in the hopes that he will show up for his trial date. For starters he is still enlisted and as such has an obligation to carry out the terms of his contract. Technically speaking he is not being punished yet he is being held in pretrial confinement. The same as anyone else that has been accused of a crime and has been arrested prior to trial. The length of his pretrial confinement to me does seem a bit questionable. I'm sure that the Army is taking their time to dot all the "I"s and cross all the "T"s. This case could be compared to the case of Clayton Lonetree.

Jan 12, 2011, 4:46pm Permalink
John Roach

Pretrial confinement, in the Military, can take a long time. That Maj. Hasan, accused in the Fort Hood shooting has been in pre trail confinement since November 2009.

Jan 12, 2011, 5:16pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

The question isn't about pre-trial confinement, it's the conditions of his confinement.

After initial reports said he was in solitary with scant contact from the outside world -- which his attorney and a military officer confirmed -- now the military, and that same officer, is denying it.

Pre-trial confinement is often necessary, and I'd say it's necessary in this case, but the conditions should be humane.

Jan 12, 2011, 7:08pm Permalink
Jeff Allen

Howard, after Googling statements by Lt. Villiard, I went back and reread the Salon.com article. The author uses semantics to create the illusion that Lt. Villard supports the claim of crual and inhumane treatment when in fact he does not. Lt. Villiard has not changed his story, his responses were placed in opposing context to make it appear that he supports the claim of the author. Very deceptive writing by Salon.com. It more than likely made the responses to this poll a big to do over something that is not supported by facts.

Jan 12, 2011, 7:54pm Permalink
Jeremiah Pedro

Howard I would suggest you read the articles in the links that I posted earlier.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40947483/ns/us_news-wikileaks_in_security/

http://www.bradleymanning.org/15838/bradley-manning-in-quantico-a-call-w...

Both of these links will take you to articles that are far less prejudicial than the Salon.com article you cited.

The one going to www.bradleymanning.org is very well written and the writer gives advice to anyone else who may like to contact the brig where Manning is being held in pretrial confinement for a serious crime.

Jan 12, 2011, 9:23pm Permalink

Authentically Local