The treatment of Bradley Manning by the United States Army has stained the honor of the American military. Manning is the soldier who leaked over two hundred thousand documents to WikiLeaks -- documents printed by The New York Times and a host of other publications whose patriotism and support of our country are unimpeachable. None of these documents gave out troop positions or any other military secrets. Private Manning's intent has been clearly documented: he feared for the future of his country and he felt desperate to correct our course.
In return, the most powerful army in the world is subjecting him to brutal treatment that qualifies as borderline torture. One can argue the extent, if any, of his guilt, or whether the editorial board of The New York Times should be brought up on criminal charges for aiding and abetting the delivery of the material Manning leaked. But torture? Sanctioned and conducted by the U.S. Army? Sleep deprivation 'a la North Korea's brainwashing techniques? Stripped and forced to stand naked in a cold cell? Kept in total isolation 23 hours a day except when he must respond to guards who check on him -- every 5 minutes? This is the "new army"? Who gave the go-ahead to impose this kind of treatment on a man who may not even have committed a crime? Who decided to raise the stakes in Manning's trial and bring capital charges against him. That's right. He is accused of aiding and abetting the enemy and for a U.S. soldier, the punishment can be death, although the army announced, in a show of benevolence, they will likely only seek life imprisonment.
Whoever it is driving this madness, they have a commanding officer. And somewhere up the line, the buck stops at the top -- at least that's the single most important, bottom-line rule of leadership. In the United States Army, the top is known as the Commander in Chief, also known as the President of the United States, Barack Obama. Which leads me to wonder:
Why is the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces silent about the torture and judicial railroading of an American soldier by his own army, an army of which President Obama is the highest ranking officer? As Ruth Marcus recently noted in The Washington Post, Obama's is becoming the "Where's Waldo" presidency. Marcus points out that there's always a rational explanation for why Obama is strangely inconspicuous during a given event but, as has been often observed, the apparent upshot is a man unwilling to articulate a moral stance, to stand for anything. Obama seems to operate under the mistaken impression that leadership is akin to facilitating a corporate retreat.
Under George Bush our nation, with liberty and justice for all, regularly used torture as a state-sanctioned extension of political, military, and judicial policy. From Abu Ghraib to Guantanamo, from the kidnappings and renditions that culminated in U.S. sponsored torture-sessions throughout eastern Europe, northern Africa, and Asia, the United States became something unrecognizable, a Dr. Jekyll willingly abandoning itself to its inner, murderous Mr. Hyde.
Many of those tortured were innocent, caught up in petty feuds or an operation that swept up "the usual suspects". Some were guilty -- but of what? Who determined their guilt and did the punishment, prior to any determination of guilt, fit the crime? Tragically, the Bush administration gave up America's last pretensions to ethical distinction among nations.
Now Obama has passed his term's halfway point. Guantanamo is still open. The official language that sanctioned torture has been Obamafied -- that is, made better than it was under Bush but still not so strong as to repudiate or even definitively end torture. No member of the previous administration has been called to account for their use of torture, not only legally, but even in a public statement by the president. To paraphrase the Buffalo Springfield, "nobody's right if nobody is wrong."
So again I wonder:
If George Bush could use his authority as President and Commander in Chief to lead the United States on a descent into torture and gross violation of civil liberties, why can't President Obama use his authority to take a stand against torture and to restore liberty and law?
Does a conscientious stand against the violence of war deserve the treatment to which Private Manning has been subjected? Should anyone -- whether convicted or not, whatever their crime -- be tortured by the very institutions that exist to protect not only our individual rights, but the very ideas of liberty and law? And doesn't the army's use of torture and severe judicial proceedings debase the military authorities who vent their fury in the ugliest way possible on one of their own, and undermine the legitimacy of the military as the protective instrument of the nation?
And finally, if our Commander in Chief shrinks into the background and ignores the abuse of Bradley Manning, how can he expect to maintain his credibility as our leader, as the moral compass of our country?
http://www.truth-out.org/confining-manning-and-falling-into-outer-darkness68793
The military industrial establishment likes torture (that could explain why so much of it goes on) or:
They don't have a case against Bradley Manning.
(Actually, I think both are true.)
If we are to believe the reports, private Manning enlisted in the U.S. Army in 2007, while still in his teens - for all practical purposes, a kid fresh out of high school.
Now here’s where the fun begins. The U.S. Army assigns this kid to position where he has access to sensitive traffic, both military and diplomatic. My question is; by what standard did the command structure open the door to this blunder?
No one disputes he committed crimes here. What we want is appropriate culpability to those officers who placed this unstable kid in a position to do damage in the blindness of youth and personal conflicts.
Yes, many out here want an accounting from the Fort Drum Command in this matter.
The Court calls: Major General James L.Terry.
If you think that ANY of the leaked information was news to any country with an intelligence network (i.e. all of them!) you're dreaming.
The ONLY people this is news to is the (wait for it . . . ) the public!
Yes, folks, you are the enemy!
One thing to admire about Obama is he has a sound moral compass, and sets a good example for our youth. He hasn't spoken out on this issue because there is no need to. Brutal treatment? Didn't you listen last presidential election? Obama listened to McCain talk about the Cong, and recognizes that Manning is not experiencing torture, but an effort to ensure he stays alive for trial.
I'm certainly glad he's our leader, not you.
The UN is way to corrupt to go against the US.
The truth is liberty and law in this country are reserved for those with money.
If your point, as a person that HuffPost seems to want to give a voice, is to create some sort of emotional story to divert the focus away from what the information is already showing us, you have failed.
I do not believe that the United States government, in any way, is "abusing" Pfc. Manning, but you need to realize that trying to create that story does absolutely nothing to change the reality that Manning is about to pay for his violations with his life.
goodday
As far as the charges go, the information that's already out in the ether clearly shows that Pfc. Manning, as a member of military personnel, with access to the raw intelligence reports, decided, for whatever reason, that he was going to now be the arbiter of what the American public ought to know or not know. He took, apparently, blank CDs into his workplace, copied classified information, and worked to dump it onto the public.
Regardless of the role that Assange played in the whole fiasco, with the main focus being on determining whether Assange, in any way, pushed Manning to seize the information and hand it over, the case against Manning is a pretty rock solid one. Tough luck for him, but treason is treason.
Anyway, if you think solitary confinement and near utter isolation is "unAmerican", that's your opinion; I don't share that opinion.
In addition, the concept that receiving "additional confinement credit" is an appropriate remedy for illegal treatment during pretrial confinement is ludicrous. The appropriate remedy is discipline (possibly including imprisonment) for those guilty of treating him illegally, and, if the treatment is sufficiently egregious, dismissal of all charges as a result of the government's outrageous conduct. FYI, that's what happens in the civilian justice system.
The additional remedies you suggest exist in the military justice system.. Article 93 of the UCMJ prohibits maltreatment of subordinates, which would include imprisoned Soldiers. Punishment under this article could include imprisonment.
I do not argue that a man accused of leaking computer files needs to be stripped naked and confined to total isolation for 10 months. What I argue is that there is a fair justice system in place to address any violations of the rights of PFC Manning.