update on Manning's torture

[SteveMetz]

The Red Cross were allowed into Guantanamo so why not into this facility. The refusal is a message to the (unsophisticated majority of the) world that maybe the US indeed has something to hide.

This Manning business is an addition to the case study into the US's dissociative identity disorder.

Here we have a nation on one hand tying both hands of its soldiers in Afghanistan behind their backs (through utterly restrictive RoEs) in a vain but desperate attempt to win the hearts and minds of people (whose hearts and minds are not up for grabs in the first place) and then the abject and almost pathetic fear of offending Muslims, the "Arab Street" and the Russians by constant promises not to put boots on the ground in Libya and then on the other flipping the world over a minor and trivial matter like the pre-trial incarceration and treatment of Bradley Manning. This positively boggles the mind.

Will the real America please stand up.

First of all, the Red Cross in Guantanamo is not an analogy. The issue there was that one nation was holding citizens of a different nation. The Red Cross does not investigate every nation when a prisoner complains of mistreatment since a huge proportion of them in every country do. What country is going to accept an international investigation every time one of their incarcerated citizens complains?

In term of this sending a message to you that the US has something to hide, seems to me that more reflects a predisposition than the evidence on this issue since you continue to base your position solely on the claims of someone who is most likely a chronic liar with a victim complex.

[JMA]

First of all, the Red Cross in Guantanamo is not an analogy. The issue there was that one nation was holding citizens of a different nation. The Red Cross does not investigate every nation when a prisoner complains of mistreatment since a huge proportion of them in every country do. What country is going to accept an international investigation every time one of their incarcerated citizens complains?

Come on Steve, please.

The Manning case/Wikileaks thing/ Assanje is the biggest thing in terms of legal cases and a media frenzy since sliced bread.

The clever move would have been to invite the Red Cross in at the first sniff of a situation developing and not flipping anyone and everyone who shows an interest or some concern.

In term of this sending a message to you that the US has something to hide, seems to me that more reflects a predisposition than the evidence on this issue since you continue to base your position solely on the claims of someone who is most likely a chronic liar with a victim complex.

You just don't get it do you?

The clever move would have been to anticipate what the negative possibilities that could flow out of this were and get the "gravy-train" load of government spin-doctors to head off the criticism and make sure his treatment was beyond reproach.

Not me, the world has every right (given previous US behaviour) to be skeptical about what the US says it has done/is doing as opposed to what it has done/is really doing.

Manning was arrested 11 months ago (26 May 2010) and is still being kept as a pre-trial prisoner in conditions creating international concern. This delay leaves the US wide open to all manner of criticism.

Does nobody have the smarts to realise that due process must be seen to be done and Manning get his day in court. If necessary get him on a minor charge and convict him so that he becomes a bono fide prisoner while the main case is lined up against him. 11 months? Can't you see how questions are starting to be asked?

Current Administration can't even handle the Manning case intelligently, little wonder the Libyan thing is rapidly slipping out of control so fast.

As far as I'm concerned I would have accepted Manning being Court Marshalled and dealt with in Kuwait within a few months of his arrest. It is an American problem.

As a non-American though I am absolutely thrilled at Wikileaks for exposing what so many people the world over have suspected all along being that the US State Department was totally incompetent.

[SteveMetz]

Come on Steve, please.

The Manning case/Wikileaks thing/ Assanje is the biggest thing in terms of legal cases and a media frenzy since sliced bread.

The clever move would have been to invite the Red Cross in at the first sniff of a situation developing and not flipping anyone and everyone who shows an interest or some concern.



You just don't get it do you?

The clever move would have been to anticipate what the negative possibilities that could flow out of this were and get the "gravy-train" load of government spin-doctors to head off the criticism and make sure his treatment was beyond reproach.

Not me, the world has every right (given previous US behaviour) to be skeptical about what the US says it has done/is doing as opposed to what it has done/is really doing.

Manning was arrested 11 months ago (26 May 2010) and is still being kept as a pre-trial prisoner in conditions creating international concern. This delay leaves the US wide open to all manner of criticism.

Does nobody have the smarts to realise that due process must be seen to be done and Manning get his day in court. If necessary get him on a minor charge and convict him so that he becomes a bono fide prisoner while the main case is lined up against him. 11 months? Can't you see how questions are starting to be asked?

Current Administration can't even handle the Manning case intelligently, little wonder the Libyan thing is rapidly slipping out of control so fast.

As far as I'm concerned I would have accepted Manning being Court Marshalled and dealt with in Kuwait within a few months of his arrest. It is an American problem.

As a non-American though I am absolutely thrilled at Wikileaks for exposing what so many people the world over have suspected all along being that the US State Department was totally incompetent.

So what you're advocating is that whenever an incarcerated person in any country complains about conditions, there is an international investigation? Or does this rule just apply to the United States? Is the only standard to instigate such an investigation that an incarcerated person complains? That's a dangerous precedent since it would then be used simply to harass governments.

I also don't think an investigation would blunt criticism. The critics currently assert "torture" and "inhumane treatment" as if it is fact even though there is no evidence other than Manning's own claims. This suggests to me that they're driven by an anti-US/anti-DoD predisposition rather than any factual evidence. So even if an investigation would satisfy them on this issue (which is unlikely), they'd just gin up some other criticism. There are some critics and criticism which deserve to be taken seriously and some that you just have to ignore.

On Wikileaks in general, I am appalled that Assange is perfectly willing to assist despots in pursuit of his two primary goals: feeding his own narcissism and attempting to harm the United States. It's nauseating that he wraps this in morality and people buy it.

[JMA]

So what you're advocating is that whenever an incarcerated person in any country complains about conditions, there is an international investigation? Or does this rule just apply to the United States? Is the only standard to instigate such an investigation that an incarcerated person complains?

Steve, you still don't get it.

Bradley Manning is not just any incarcerated person in any country. This I'm sure you know.

I also believe that you realise that with even a smidgen of intelligent finesse the current US Administration could have dealt with this matter more rapidly and more effectively.

The handling was worse than an own goal, worse than shooting oneself in the foot, more like shooting oneself in the head.

On Wikileaks in general, I am appalled that Assange is perfectly willing to assist despots in pursuit of his two primary goals: feeding his own narcissism and attempting to harm the United States.

Narcissism there may well be but as far as harm is concerned the Wikileaks history of leaks indicates that the US has not been singled out for harm (it that's what you call it).

Yes the US has been embarrassed by Wikileaks, yes the US has been humiliated by the Wikileaks and this may take some time to heal. But given a little time I predict that Americans will be thankful that Wikileaks exposed the State Department for the incompetent waste of money that it is.

[SteveMetz]

No he's not just any incarcerated person in any country--he's a convenient wedge that America haters have found useful to leverage, a stalking horse. I think it's incumbent on you to explain exactly why you think he is differently than the tens of thousands of incarcerated people around the world who complain about their predicament.

My point is why should there be one rule that applies to the United States that does not apply to any other country? One should not advocate a principle that is not universal.

On Wikileaks in general, I suspect that the U.S. State Department is no more incompetent or nefarious than any other nation's diplomatic corps. Again, what's the universal principle? Should all nations make public their diplomatic correspondence or only the U.S? Of course, in reality Wikileaks is incapable or uninterested in publicizing the diplomatic correspondence of despotic states.

[J Wolfsberger]

But given a little time I predict that Americans will be thankful that Wikileaks exposed the State Department for the incompetent waste of money that it is.

Trust me in this, a very large number of us didn't need Wikileaks' help to figure that out.