- Joined
- Feb 2, 2010
- Messages
- 27,101
- Reaction score
- 12,359
- Location
- Granada, España
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
PJ Crowley - Bradley Manning - BBC
Is the treatment of him reasonable? Clearly the White House doesn't believe so. Is it intended to be punitive, preventive or aimed at ensuring he is totally isolated from the outside world? Is it overkill given the absence of threat he now constitutes.
He's hasn't been executed, so I don't think his treatment has risen to the level of, "reasonable". They need to come in, in the middle of the night, wake him up and put a couple rounds in his ****ing grape. That would be reasonable treatment for a traitor.
He's no threat to anyone for any reason, I don't see why they have to guantanamize him. He may leak in your face though and shatter whatever little nationalistic political reality you believe in. Which is probably a threat to national security.
Someone needs to put a round of library books in your grape.
Once again, U.S. policy is decided by a bunch of idiots. Manning was obviously going to be in the media spotlight and should have been treated with kid gloves. He is only a threat if given access to pathetic security system filled with secret documents and there is no practical reason for abusing him. We have sacrificed yet more credibility when we criticize other regimes for mistreating prisoners and have gained nothing in return.
Mr Obama added that some aspects of Pte Manning's treatment "has to do with his safety as well".
Military officials have said this is standard procedure for people deemed a suicide risk.
What you have is a guy who worked against his own country, being held in a military prison(which is where he belongs as military personnel), and people can't figure out why he is in solitary? Right or wrong, he would not survive 2 days in general population. Add in the suicide watch and, well, that pretty much explains things.
You'd figure he'd get along with the rest of the 'traitors'... :shrug:
What you have is a guy who worked against his own country, being held in a military prison(which is where he belongs as military personnel), and people can't figure out why he is in solitary? Right or wrong, he would not survive 2 days in general population. Add in the suicide watch and, well, that pretty much explains things.
Reality isn't what matters in this case. I have no idea if Manning is actually being mistreated. The point is to avoid the appearance of abuse to score PR points. This is an opportunity to take back some moral high-ground lost with gitmo and Abu Ghraib. There is minimal cost and zero risk is giving manning special red-carpet treatment and it will give us more credibility than actually solving problems of prisoner abuse.
There is no moral ground being lost except to those who already assume it. There is zero evidence he is actually being mistreated.
It might be self evident because he's on suicide watch and a political prisoner imo.There is zero evidence he is actually being mistreated.
That doesn't matter. In the world of public opinion, since we have already abused prisoners on other occasions, the mere accusation is enough. While it might be distasteful to cater to fools, the costs are minimal and we need the boost to our image. We live in a world of advertising and television sound bytes and our foreign policy needs to reflect that.
It might be self evident because he's on suicide watch and a political prisoner imo.
I don't think you understand. For those who assume the US is evil, or for those who see Manning and WikiLeaks as some kind of martyrs, they see what they expect to see here. For every one else, they see the truth, that under the circumstances he is clearly not being mistreated.
He's hasn't been executed, so I don't think his treatment has risen to the level of, "reasonable". They need to come in, in the middle of the night, wake him up and put a couple rounds in his ****ing grape. That would be reasonable treatment for a traitor.
That is based on the false assumption that people's opinions cannot be swayed. Many of those people who think the U.S. is evil also thought Obama was greatest thing since sliced bread. It would satisfy their desire just as much to see Obama "changing" the treatment of prisoners as the U.S. being evil. What harm is there is giving Bradley particularly nice treatment in return for good PR?
That is based on the false assumption that people's opinions cannot be swayed. Many of those people who think the U.S. is evil also thought Obama was greatest thing since sliced bread. It would satisfy their desire just as much to see Obama "changing" the treatment of prisoners as the U.S. being evil. What harm is there is giving Bradley particularly nice treatment in return for good PR?
I was surprised how quick the WH and other pols in DC were quick to meddle in the affairs of another sovereign nation.
Since wikileaks we know that happens often. Democracy begins at home Mr. Prez., and you and your congress ain't been representing, yo!
Well...if he managed to kill himself as he has threatened, or another prisoner killed him, how do you think the wingnuts would react? Any one dumb enough to think he is a political prisoner or being mistreated somehow is not some one who is going to going to be reasonable on the issue anyway.
You want "them" to like us. "They" are never going to like us.
If we give "special treatment" to a treasonous worm like Bradley, then we are announcing to the world that what he did wasn't really bad, in fact it was really good and we want more people to do what he did so we can treat them special too.
"They" don't enforce US law. We don't enforce "their" laws. Bradley is being treated exactly the same as every other suicidal and protected prisoner in that brig. Which is the only fair and right thing to do.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?