It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WikiLeaks:Locking Up Whistleblower Bradley Manning in Solitary Confinement Puts America's Depravity

page: 4
15
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ellen15
3rd January 2011 Mannings Lawyer, Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Speedy Trial


The Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial is applied to military jurisprudence through two separate and distinct provisions-- Rule for Court-Martial (R.C.M.) 707 and Article 10 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) (10 U.S.C. § 810).

While both provisions seek to protect the same constitutional right, and while there is considerable overlap between the two, each provision has separate rules regarding when the protections attach and when they are breached.


Read more here: www.armycourtmartialdefense.info...


What is left out of his post, specifically 707C: UCMJ


"(c) Excludable delay. All periods of time during which appellate courts have issued stays in the proceedings, or the accused is absent without authority, or the accused is hospitalized due to incompetence, or is otherwise in the custody of the Attorney General, shall be excluded when determining whether the period in subsection (a) of this rule has run. All other pretrial delays approved by a military judge or the convening authority shall be similarly excluded."


His trial / Court Martial is set for Spring of 2011.




posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Pyros
 


Actually


Times v. United States is generally considered a victory for an extensive reading of the First Amendment, but as the Supreme Court ruled on whether the government had made a successful case for prior restraint, its decision did not void the Espionage Act or give the press unlimited freedom to publish classified documents. Ellsberg and Russo were not acquitted of violating the Espionage Act; they were freed due to a mistrial from irregularities in the government's case.


Pentagon paper case



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ellen15
Others have pointed this out in other threads (maybe even in this one lol) on this very same thing



Hehe, yes I did on page one, but you cannot stop him repeating these things and I bet he will do again and again.

While they wake up Manning every now and then to rob his sleep, Xcathdra repeats his baseless arguments as long, until everybody got asleep.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by Res Ipsa
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Do you think there is some "safety" reason for not allowing him to sleep when he wants? I would become homicidal if someone kept screwing with me when I want to sleep.

We only did 15minute checks on someone that is on suicide watch....I thought he wasn't.

...but if the description you provided is "accurate", then he has it better than the guy I know.



The information is coming directly from Pvt. Mannings lawyer, and I linked the article, as well as the actual lawyers webpage that has the same info release on it. He is checked on every 5 minutes during the day. At night if the guards cannot see him becuase the blanket is covering him, they wake him to see if he is ok. If he is not hidden, he is allowed to sleep uninterupted.

At what point is it not clear that he broke the law. . . Jail / Prison is not suppose to be used in a manner to reward people for their actions. Also, he is being held in a pre trial confinement area, not levenworth.



....At what point was he convicted? I missed that part. Yes, they wake him up at night if they can't see him...but why did you neglect to point out that they DO NOT let him sleep at all during the day.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Siddharta

Hehe, yes I did on page one, but you cannot stop him repeating these things and I bet he will do again and again.

While they wake up Manning every now and then to rob his sleep, Xcathdra repeats his baseless arguments as long, until everybody got asleep.


You really should do some more research. They dont wake him if they can see him. They only wake him up when he is hidden by the blankets.

I will use the information available to make my case. Whether or not you want to beleive is not my problem, but yours. The other info in the articles you choose to ignore are used in other news sources. I would like to see Assange deny that he ever made the comment. If you have a link that has Assange denying he ever said his goal was revenge, then by all means, link it.

It comes back to the fact that you, and several other people are so blinded by whatever, you ignore any information that paints assange and this mess in a bad light, up to and including using excess amounts of smiley faces when responsding in a manner that suggests a "gotcha" moment.

You and Ellen both ignore the information present, dismiss info and sources that dont match your views, yet fail completely by providing no evidence to supprt your claims.

So far we have gotten - Assange would never say that, The dailymail is a tabloid/rag magazine, Assange never said thos words, other people did, the quote was made up.

Thats all fine and dany, but as you both have done to me I do to you.

Provide evidence of your claims or its nothing more than you guys making answers up in an effort to discredit a source that is reporting information that does not fit your views of assange and the siutuation.

If you cannot provide sources, then quit claiming it as fact.
edit on 7-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Res Ipsa
 


Where did conviction come from? He has been charged with a crime, not convicted of it. Not really sure where you want to take that comment so can you clarify?

He is chrged with a crime, and his court martial is supposedly scheduled for spring 2011. He is currently in pre trial confinement and is listed as suicide watch / protection of injury.

He is not a civilian, he is military, which means the manner in which people are held that we all are used to talking about is not going to be the case here.


Under the rules for the confinement facility, he is not allowed to sleep at anytime between 5 a.m. and 8 p.m. If he attempts to sleep during those hours, he will be made to sit up or stand by the guards.


He is still subject to the chain of command. Just because he is charged with a crime does not exempt him from that, including following the orders of those people higher in rank. Failure to abide by those commands can create more charges for him.

I quoted the entire post from the lawyers website.. Is it really too much to ask that people actually read it on their own? Waking a person during the day is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the case at all. MAnning is not the only person subject to that rule, and his lawyer has pointed this out as well, saying the treatment manning gets is the same other soldiers ther get.

Please people, research and read on your own.




edit on 7-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
You really should do some more research. They dont wake him if they can see him. They only wake him up when he is hidden by the blankets.


Does it matter, when and why they wake him up? It is reported, that he is in a bad condition of health. That is enough to question, what is going on.


I would like to see Assange deny that he ever made the comment. If you have a link that has Assange denying he ever said his goal was revenge, then by all means, link it.


Why should he run around and deny, what he did not say? Both, Ellen and I, gave you the original quote. What else do you need?


So far we have gotten - Assange would never say that, The dailymail is a tabloid/rag magazine, Assange never said thos words, other people did, the quote was made up.


Okay, once again and very slowly. Your "quote" was that one:


Assange said his decision to dump top secret US documents on its website was revenge against "abusive elements of the United States government".


The original sentence is this:


Since April of this year our timetable has not been our own, rather it has been one that has centred on the moves of abusive elements of the United States government against us.


So what did they do? They did not like the first part of the sentence and exchanged it against their own interpretation. They even made it clear by marking the part, which is quoted with quoatation marks: "abusive elements of the United States government". The "revenge" is not in the original sentence, but only in their own interpretation.


If you cannot provide sources, then quit claiming it as fact.


You have been given the original source for this quote for the third time now. I am still not sure, if it is a method by you to make false statements and prove themselves to be wrong with your own sources, but still stick to it ignoring the facts - or if you really cannot distinguish between a quote and a secondary interpretation.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Siddharta
Does it matter, when and why they wake him up? It is reported, that he is in a bad condition of health. That is enough to question, what is going on.


He is reported as being depressed, and has access to medical for that issue. If the guards do not check on Manning, and it turns out manning turns up dead, I can only imagine the screaming people will do about how they killed manning by not checking on him. If I understand your argument here correctly, we are opening the doors for a 90 year old man to kill a person, rob a bank etc, and not send him to jail because he suffers from bad health?

talk about Carte blanche in terms of a new defense. Its right up their with the twinky defense. Prisoners in custody have access to medical.

With that being said, I still maintain his actions run contrary to his / wikileaks stated goals of releasing information that details illegal activity in an effort to stop the activity as well as stop 2 wars. It would be one things if he released just those documents that detail the criminal activity (in his mind - since whats criminal in Austrailia and Europe might not be criminal here in the States - sex witrhout a condom comes to mind) however when its mixed in with thousand and hundreds of thousands of other documents, one must question the motive.

As I have said before, if someone comes at you with a knife, and you shoot them in defence, and the guy goes to the ground wounded and not moving, you pull back and let an investigation occur. You do not walk up to the person and shoot them in the head, while still claiming it was self defense.

He has abandoned the stated goal and is running a seperate agenda.




edit on 7-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Siddharta
Originally posted by Ellen




Originally posted by Siddharta
Okay, once again and very slowly. Your "quote" was that one:


Assange said his decision to dump top secret US documents on its website was revenge against "abusive elements of the United States government".


The original sentence is this:


Since April of this year our timetable has not been our own, rather it has been one that has centred on the moves of abusive elements of the United States government against us.


So what did they do? They did not like the first part of the sentence and exchanged it against their own interpretation. They even made it clear by marking the part, which is quoted with quoatation marks: "abusive elements of the United States government". The "revenge" is not in the original sentence, but only in their own interpretation.


I will concede that I am wrong with reference to "revenge" and I applogize to you and Ellen.


edit on 7-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 07:26 AM
link   
Thank You

I like to be doubly clear lol

the words "abusive elements of the United States government" was used by Julian in a Q & A in the Guardian
they were NOT used in reference as others in the past have suggested (in many other threads)


gnosticheresy

What happened to all the other documents that were on Wikileaks prior to these series of "megaleaks"? Will you put them back online at some stage ("technical difficulties" permitting)?

Julian Assange:
Many of these are still available at mirror.wikileaks.info and the rest will be returning as soon as we can find a moment to do address the engineering complexities.

Since April of this year our timetable has not been our own, rather it has been one that has centred on the moves of abusive elements of the United States government against us. But rest assured I am deeply unhappy that the three-and-a-half years of my work and others is not easily available or searchable by the general public


From the Q & A in the Guardian, other tabloid/rag newspapers, layman blogs, media have totally taken alot of what Julian said in that Q & A out of content/context and put their OWN spin/twist/slant in their articles
basially what these tabloid/rag newspapers, layman blogs and media outlets do is:
a cut and paste dump from various newspapers and produce their own articles and stories

So many FALL for it and repeat it.. and THAT is how disinformation and Propaganda is SPREAD and so many even in here repeat these lies unknowingly, some of you even repeat it knowingly

For the record, some of these tabloid/rag newspapers, laymans blogs media outlets also make out like Julian refers to the cables as "massive dump" or "dump" on the internet

Julian would never refer to the cables like that, he may however use this term to point out to the media outlets they are NOT dumps or dump

Quite a few newspapers in the past week or so have issued apologises for misrepresenting the cables as massive dump, or misrepresenting the cables uploads (they usually make out like all 250,000 are online, when that is NOT true) some of them have since apologised for this, some havent and continue to feed this false information

edit on 7-1-2011 by Ellen15 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 07:34 AM
link   
His Cell is 6x12 . My dorm room was 9x12 back in the olden days. Gimme a break. Here's the reality for this treasonous sob.


He is allowed to watch television during the day. The television stations are limited to the basic local stations. His access to the television ranges from 1 to 3 hours on weekdays to 3 to 6 hours on weekends

At 5:00 a.m. he is woken up (on weekends, he is allowed to sleep until 7:00 a.m.). Under the rules for the confinement facility, he is not allowed to sleep at anytime between 5:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. If he attempts to sleep during those hours, he will be made to sit up or stand by the guards

From 7:00 p.m. to 9:20 p.m., he is given correspondence time. He is given access to a pen and paper. He is allowed to write letters to family, friends, and his attorneys. Each night, during his correspondence time, he is allowed to take a 15 to 20 minute shower.

On weekends and holidays, he is allowed to have approved visitors see him from 12:00 to 3:00 p.m.

He is only allowed to have one book or one magazine at any given time to read in his cell. The book or magazine is taken away from him at the end of the day before he goes to sleep.

He is prevented from exercising in his cell. He does receive one hour of “exercise” outside of his cell daily. He is taken to an empty room and only allowed to walk.



For all you out there spending your nights wringing your hands over the confinement conditions of Private Manning, here’s a holiday suggestion. Why don’t you contact the U.S.O. and see if you can do something to brighten the days of service members who didn’t sell out their nation? Trust me, you’ll feel better about yourself after you do.


hotair.com...



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
He is reported as being depressed, and has access to medical for that issue. If the guards do not check on Manning, and it turns out manning turns up dead, I can only imagine the screaming people will do about how they killed manning by not checking on him. If I understand your argument here correctly, we are opening the doors for a 90 year old man to kill a person, rob a bank etc, and not send him to jail because he suffers from bad health?


That's a bad comparison. It's not about letting someone get away with a big crime. It is about the conditions under which somebody is held before a judicial proceeding.
It is very contradictory to keep somebody in a situation, that causes depression and arguing, that they have to keep him in this condition, because he is depressiv.

Maybe that the USA don't care about Human Rights too much anymore and if you feel good with this, than it's okay for you. But of course the world will watch this with discomfort and criticize it - as the US criticizes other countries for the same.


As I have said before, if someone comes at you with a knife, and you shoot them in defence, and the guy goes to the ground wounded and not moving, you pull back and let an investigation occur. You do not walk up to the person and shoot them in the head, while still claiming it was self defense.


This indeed is a good comparison, if you use it for Manning. He is in jail. Why treat him worse than necessary?

David House, one of the few who may visit Manning, reported some details, which were told differently by the Quantico information office:


Manning related to me on December 18 2010 that he is not allowed to view international news during his television period. He mentioned that he might theoretically be able to view local news, but his television period is typically from 7pm – 8pm such that no local news is playing in the Quantico, VA area. Manning told me explicitly on December 18 2010 that he is not, nor has he ever been, allowed newspapers while in confinement. When I said “The Pentagon has stated that you are allowed newspapers”, his immediate reaction was surprised laughter.



Manning stated to me on December 18 2010 that he has not been outside or into the brig yard for either recreation nor exercise in four full weeks. He related that visits to the outdoors have been infrequent and sporadic for the past several months.



Manning related to me on December 18 2010 that he does not receive any substantive exercise and cannot perform even basic exercises in his cell. When told of the Pentagon’s statement that he did indeed receive exercise, Manning’s reply was that he is able to exercise insofar as walking in chains is a form of exercise.



Manning related to me on December 19 2010 that his blankets are similar in weight and heft to lead aprons used in X-ray laboratories, and similar in texture to coarse and stiff carpet. He stated explicitly that the blankets are not soft in the least and expressed concern that he had to lie very still at night to avoid receiving carpet burns. The problem of carpet burns was exacerbated, he related, by the stipulation that he must sleep only in his boxer shorts as part of the longstanding POI order. Manning also stated on December 19 2010 that hallway-mounted lights shine through his window at night. This constant illumination is consistent with reports from attorney David Coombs’ blog that marines must visually inspect Manning as he sleeps.


David House' Report

It is not about hero or traitor, and not about guilty or not guilty. It is simply about appropriate treatment of a human being.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Siddharta
 


Everything you just posted is exactly in line with Coombs release of information. The knife gun comparison is for both Manning and Assange, and it goes to motive of both.

If manning just released documents that had specific wrong doing, and if Assange just released documents that had a specific wrongdoing, then you would come to thecomparison with the knife weilder being shot, and allowing an investigation to occur to find out what the knife weilder was doing.

Going beyond and releasing documents that are classified, but have absolutely nothing to do with wrong doing / illegal activity is where manning and assange have gone. Instead of taking the knife welding man down and letting an investigation to occur, they both walked up and finished the knife weilder off with unnecessary shots.

The result of that is focus was shifted to assange and manning, and not the info they were attemtping to get out into the spotlight. Instead their actions took the limelight.

A true journalist reports the story in an unbiased manner, providing information from both sides and allowing the people reading it to make up their minds. In this case, they made themselves the story.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Woa, let’s put some stuff into perspective; young PFC Manning is not some uniformed dupe - he is a member of US Army Military Intelligence and has a TOP SECRET SCI clearance.

With that comes a # load of warnings and training to be granted access.

He knew full well what the implications and punishments would be should he violate the rules for nondisclosure.

There is an extensive list of forms and training he had to have to gain access from the Special Security Officer, its training and signing agreements that has to be done every single time you move to a new unit or gain access to a new program:

Here is one of the key portions of the agreement:

8. I understand that all information to which I may obtain access by signing this Agreement is now and will remain the property of the United States Government unless and until otherwise determined by an appropriate official or final ruling of a court of law. Subject to such determination, I do not now, nor will I ever, possess any right, interest, title or claim whatsoever to such information. I agree that I shall return all materials that may have come into my possession or for which I am responsible because of such access, upon demand by an authorized representative of the United States Government or upon the conclusion of my employment or other relationship with the United States Government entity providing me access to such materials. If I do not return such materials upon request, I understand this may be a violation of Section 793, Title 18, United States Code.

He signed that and other documents sayine he would proctect and safeguard the information to which he was entrusted....

Here are links to some of the forms so you can see what he agreed to:

www.dtic.mil..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> www.dtic.mil...
www.dtic.mil..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> www.dtic.mil...

He is not some "hero" who is bucking the system he is a disgruntled Soldier who may have violated his oath of enlistment which is contractual along with all the additional agreements he signed which are also contractual.

However, he may indeed be innocent which will be determined at trial.

His treatment in military detention is standard practice for detained saboteurs and spies and much like many other "rights" to which civilians are entitled we as Soldiers are subject to the UCMJ which takes some of those rights away due to the unique relationship of the Soldier with the country he serves.

It is the nature of the job, which he entered into not only voluntarily but presumably fraudulently as he is a homosexual.

While don’t ask don’t tell applies for enlistment it does not apply when filling out the SF 86 requesting a security clearance, which does ask about past and present sexual behavior. So he had to have knowingly lied unless he took up cock sucking as a hobby after he enlisted.

So I wouldn't be all sorry for the kid until we find out more facts in the case, which is likely to never happen because the case will likely be so redacted for national security reasons (and rightly so) that we, the general public, will have no idea what the story is.

As for this.....


GLENN GREENWALD: Right. And, of course, Bradley Manning is the 22-year-old Army private who is alleged, though not at all proven or convicted, to have been a source for not only the diplomatic cables that were just released but also the trove of documents about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, as well as the [COLOR="SandyBrown"]video that showed an Apache helicopter attacking unarmed civilians and killing two journalists in Baghdad ,[/COLOR] as well as other undisclosed—yet undisclosed information that WikiLeak appears to possess.

Especially the bold part, the author (ole Glenn) is making an assessment that is not quite accurate and is his opinion stated as fact... Not exactly good journalism.

I can't post a topic here yet so see my analysis here: forums.armageddononline.org... That site is prety rough and the conversations can be a lot of name calling and BS so switched to this one.

I am certainly not all knowing or wihtout bias but I am what one could (and military courts have in the past) consider a qualified and trained observer when it comes to combat engagements and ROE. I am a career military person serving 24 years, over 15 of which is in special operations and Intelligence – culminating as a field grade officer who has performed numerous 15-6 investigations into the lawfulness of combat actions and circimstances surrounding freindly combat deaths.

I take a lot of stuff on the ATS and other forums tongue in cheek; however, that incident was not one of them. That is completely a professional assessment and I would stake my military reputation on my assessment. I see that engagement as completely within the rules of engagement.

You can make your own call of course....



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 


Are you saying, he got the tatoo of the gang and so he has to bear the punishment of the gang or are you saying, he is gay anyway and so he is guilty?



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 02:12 AM
link   
It's ludicrous that this government is still standing. Then again, us citizens have been conditioned for decades to only care about what's on the tube tonight.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Siddharta
reply to post by Golf66
 


Are you saying, he got the tatoo of the gang and so he has to bear the punishment of the gang or are you saying, he is gay anyway and so he is guilty?


Wow, you either heard what was convenient or do not know enough about military law and to make a useful analogy.

No, I am saying he is not an uninformed citizen who was unaware what he was doing was wrong. He was briefed and rebriefed on the penalties for violating the non-disclosure statements he signed.

Just like people who work for Nestle sign non-disclosure agreements, he signed one to protect our national secrets. The difference is Nestle is a cooperation and the remedy is civil (possibly criminal under some circumstances) and breaching the non-disclosure agreement of the Military is...well criminal - which is why he's in jail.

I would not equate the military to a gang, but yes there are rules that apply only to us and they are in many cases vastly different than those that apply to the citizens. It’s the Uniform Code of Military Justice. As far as I know there is no rape or beat in/out clause.

About him being gay...all I was pointing out was for those who might be unaware DADT goes out the window when you apply for a clearance as you are asked questions about your sexual habits the answers to which very much matter.

So don’t waive the DADT flag, he lied on official documents specifically the SF86 – I believe he is being charged with that as well – making false statements.

Because, if you harbor some behavior, not just homosexuality - say infidelity, those are indicators that you are not trustworthy. One thing most people who betray their country have in common is promiscuity and or infidelity - makes one easy to exploit by foreign agents.

Think, hey we found out you are gay or doing the next door neighbor - we will tell your wife if you don't do what we want. People will do a lot to save thier jobs and security.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Siddharta
reply to post by Golf66
 


Are you saying, he got the tatoo of the gang and so he has to bear the punishment of the gang or are you saying, he is gay anyway and so he is guilty?


I think what he is saying is Pvt. Manning joined the military on his own accord, took the oath on his own accord, went into the area on his own accord, and knew exactly what he was getting into in the process.

What he is trying to say is Manning made his bed, and now he gets to lay in it. Manning was not forced to betray his country by turning over classified information to Mr. above the law Assange.

Manning broke the law, and he goes to court for it. Why are people against responsibility? I see people on a constant basis demand accountibility from the FEderal Governmnet, the military, federal local and state agencies and government.

Why should manning not be held to the same standard you guys want to apply to anyone not on the assange - manning - anti establishment bandwagon?



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
I think what he is saying is Pvt. Manning joined the military on his own accord, took the oath on his own accord, went into the area on his own accord, and knew exactly what he was getting into in the process.


This exactly would be the same, if he was a member of the Hell's Angels.


What he is trying to say is Manning made his bed, and now he gets to lay in it. Manning was not forced to betray his country by turning over classified information to Mr. above the law Assange.


From my point of view, he did not betray your country. He gave you the possibility to know, what is going on behind the scenes with your government. He also gave you the possibility to see, what is going on in these wars so that you people can rethink, if this is really what you want.


Manning broke the law, and he goes to court for it. Why are people against responsibility? I see people on a constant basis demand accountibility from the FEderal Governmnet, the military, federal local and state agencies and government.


You can repeat this as often as you want, but I have no reason to "demand accountability from the Federal Government" as you are talking of your country. Of course, I demand it from my government. That's why I approve any information of that kind.


Why should manning not be held to the same standard you guys want to apply to anyone not on the assange - manning - anti establishment bandwagon?


The "same standard" would be alright. But in Manning's case the treatment is questionable and in Assange's case they even don't know for what they could accuse him. So it is just not about "same standards". Unless you behold Guantanamo as "standard".

Btw.: Since you do use capital letters, I guess you want to accentuate the minority of these persons by ignoring the shift-key for their names.
edit on 11-1-2011 by Siddharta because: deleted a for



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   
James Fondren was a retired USAF Colonel who got a job as a Federal Civil Servant for the U.S. Air Force Pacific Command and was a Deputy Director.

He got caught trying to sell secrets to China for money.

What happened to him? He got 36 months in prison and is serving his sentence in a low security prison where he can get a job, earn pay and even make overtime pay. He has a commissary to shop in, enjoys internet access, he even can play billiards or go out and do some sports in his leisure time. Maybe all that is too much for him and he can kick back and watch tv. He can get visitors and is even allowed "touch time" to hold his loved ones.

He likely won't even serve the entire 36 months. They even have a special program that if he acts really nice the prison warden can give him a monetary cash reward for good behavior.

See how Officers are treated better than Enlisted?

David Manning sits in solitary confinement when what James Fondren did was even worse. I bet ole James will still even get to collect his Colonel Retirement pay when he walks out of prison.

Rank has it's priveleges....



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join