Thread: Source of infamous "Baghdad airstrike" footage still in solitary w/o trial

This is fucked up. Hasn't the government had spies before? Are they usually treated like this or is it a military thing?

Originally Posted by stonedape

Are they usually treated like this

Yep, Robert Hanssen has been in solitary for the last decade.

Where do they hold these people?

I fucking hate almost every government.

The military has always thought it is above the constitution. Remember them fighting tooth and nail to keep civil rights out late last year?

Originally Posted by tommo

Where do they hold these people?

I fucking hate almost every government.

Prison.

Calm down.

I think there are a few issues here that bear discussion beyond a simple expression of outrage.

1. Manning is being held under these harsh conditions despite not having been convicted of anything yet. In fact, he hasn't even set foot in a court. Apparently this is because his escape would "pose a national security risk." He is also on a prevention-of-injury watch. Is this reasonable? Are these conditions necessary to prevent escape or injury? Or is this treatment indefensible?
2. Manning was turned in by, of all people, Adrian Lamo (of computer hacker fame), after confessing to and describing the crimes to him in a private chat room. Lamo says that he turned in Manning because he "feared that lives were at risk." What do you think? If you were in Lamo's position, would you have turned in Manning? If you were Manning, would you have released the documents in the first place? Does the leak pose a significant national risk?
3. Should the principle of freedom of information trump any risks incurred by the leak?

I'm still trying to figure out what I think about all this. Help me out.

Seems to me that his treatment is indeed indefensible, even if he had assassinated the president, killed a bunch of babies and then threatened to kill himself. But I think he did a good thing. The government as it is does more harm than good and something needs to change. I think the first step to this change is to expose the government for what it is.

Was Lamo in any way under threat? Even so I wouldn't have turned someone in in this circumstance unless they fucked my girlfriend or something. I don't really see how lives were at risk. The government's reputation was at risk, but in my opinion the government is a corrupt and vile group(not entirely, there are people involved with good intentions, but that doesn't matter because they go about it in a backwards way).

I don't know if I would have the balls to do what Manning did. The government is obviously pissed and he was probably aware he would be treated the way he is now if caught. I would go crazy if I was locked in a cage like that, I don't think I could put myself in a situation where that was a major possibility.

This leak does pose a risk to the government, but only because the government is sneaky. If they were an honest group in the first place they wouldn't have to worry about being exposed as sneaky.

And yes freedom>government(or security). In my opinion the sole purpose of the government is to defend life, liberty and property. This leak in no way in dangers life, liberty or property it only exposes the government for what it is. We shouldn't be meddling around in these other countries in the first place.

Solitary confinement? Solitary confinement? That's beyond fucked up, that's, there's no words to describe that.

Is there nothing citizens can do to help him?

Originally Posted by DuB

I think there are a few issues here that bear discussion beyond a simple expression of outrage.

1. Manning is being held under these harsh conditions despite not having been convicted of anything yet. In fact, he hasn't even set foot in a court. Apparently this is because his escape would "pose a national security risk." He is also on a prevention-of-injury watch. Is this reasonable? Are these conditions necessary to prevent escape or injury? Or is this treatment indefensible?
2. Manning was turned in by, of all people, Adrian Lamo (of computer hacker fame), after confessing to and describing the crimes to him in a private chat room. Lamo says that he turned in Manning because he "feared that lives were at risk." What do you think? If you were in Lamo's position, would you have turned in Manning? If you were Manning, would you have released the documents in the first place? Does the leak pose a significant national risk?
3. Should the principle of freedom of information trump any risks incurred by the leak?

I'm still trying to figure out what I think about all this. Help me out.

The military probably knows a lot more than the average citizen is privy to about this case. I have a feeling they're absolutely certain that he's responsible and that a trial will only be a technicality.

Unlike Assange and Wikileaks, this guy did break the law big time. If he was my countryman I'd want him in jail. I'm not sure what the big deal about solitary confinement is. It's not like he's getting beat up and stabbed and raped like any prisoner is at risk of in general population...

Jail in general, in the US at least, is extremely inhumane. I don;t think solitary confinement would be much worse, but they aren't allowing him to exercise or sleep during the day, just wearing him down bit by bit. That's a disgusting thing to do even to an animal let alone a human.

I see this as a form of torture. This is a violation of the bill of rights.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

The military probably knows a lot more than the average citizen is privy to about this case. I have a feeling they're absolutely certain that he's responsible and that a trial will only be a technicality.

A trial is never a 'technicality' in a free country. It doesn't matter how guilty you appear, or how many people saw you do it, you still get a trial.

The fact that the trial is a technicality doesn't mean there won't be one.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

The military probably knows a lot more than the average citizen is privy to about this case. I have a feeling they're absolutely certain that he's responsible and that a trial will only be a technicality.

Certainty does not equal correctness. I think they have no proof whatsoever that he did it, otherwise they would put him on trial and prove it. There's no reason to keep a person in solitary (or prison generally) without a trial other than not having proof that the person did anything.

What do they have? One hacker (reliable source yeh?) saying he told him he did it?

There should be a limit on how long you can hold someone without trial. Like a month at most, and not in solitary, it should be a secure but comfortable place.

Do you claim to know as much as the American military about an American security leak? I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. Open and shut cases often take a long time to prepare as all the evidence is gathered and processed. This case is not currently closed as the security leak is ongoing and the American government is trying very hard to mitigate any further damage.

Mitigate damage? This guy did nothing except show the damage they were causing in the first place. If you really think they are doing the right thing, there is something wrong with you.

What would you do if you came across some footage of guys blowing up innocent people?
Just ordinary guys?

You would give it to the cops or something. This is the same thing. He doesn't deserve to be locked up anywhere, let alone solitary confinement.

He's the same guy who released all those embassy reports. Releasing classified information is illegal in any country, deal with it.

Just because what he did was illegal doesn't justify his treatment. If the army is going to hold him for over a year they need to have a trial, that's how we do things in the US. The military in this country has been doing some very shady business, we are spending tons of money and risking the lives of many people in a war that shouldn't have happened in the first place. He did the right thing in my opinion.

He is scheduled for a trial, also he didn't do it to expose crimes against the innocent or anything, he just did it to brag. Pretty honourable, huh?

Really? Where did you hear he did it just to brag? He must be kind of mental then like they're saying, if you brag about shit like this then your obviously gonna get busted. What's the trial date, I can't find it, only something from jan 11 that says that the date cannot be set yet? Whatever reason he had for doing it it does expose things the US government is doing. We really need to stop having sneaky foreign policies that bite us in the ass 30 years later. He's still good in my book even if it turns out he's an idiot.

A couple of citations on wiki claim that he has a hearing in spring. He was saying to the hacker that he was passing all this information to that he was going to be discharged and that he thought that all the information was very weakly secured and was bragging about how easy it was to access. Apparently he has an attitude history.

I dunno, that doesn't exactly show that he was doing it just to brag, but you may have a point.

Have you read through the embassy documents? Most of the info isn't shady or illegal, it's just plain embarrassing.

No I haven't, will do that later in the week once I get my shit together for classes. Is it long?

I suppose I should read it before I talk about this, but in general the US gov is fucking up and has been for a long time. They deserve to be embarrassed, they don't do a good job of doing the things they need to do and are spending ludicrous amounts of money doing things they don't.