It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 02:53 PM

Originally posted by Pervius
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.

Rank has it's priveleges...

Yes, rank does have its privlidges - the person you referenced outranks everyone in the military - in fact he is a civilian or military retiree.

Did you even read your own post?

He was not in the military at the time and therefore not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice like Manning.

When one joins the United States Military, one becomes subject to a completely new justice system. While the primary purpose of the United States justice system is to dispense "justice," that is not the primary reason for the creation of a separation justice system for America's Armed Forces. The primary purpose of the Military's system is to provide the military commander with necessary tools to enforce good order and discipline. That's why, for example, it's not considered a "crime" to be late for work at your civilian job, but it is a "crime" to be late for work in the Military (violation of Article 86 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or UCMJ).

The military commander has several methods available to enforce good order and discipline within the unit, ranging from mild administrative measures such as formal or informal counseling, to full-blown General Court Martials, in which a person can be sentenced to hard labor, or even executed.

You cannot compare the two systems Manning is subject to the UCMJ and the Colonel you referenced is not.

Say for instance your boss has a group flight scheduled for 0700 tomorrow to go to a big meeting. You are supposed to be there – it means big bucks for the company.

If you are a civilian, what you get fired maybe if you oversleep and miss it, you might have to pay the cost difference for a later flight if you can…

In the military you just violated Article 87 (Missing Movement) and (other than the fact it may mean lives not money not withstanding) the penalties are:

1) Design. (If it’s intentional that you blew it off) Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 2 years.

2) Neglect (Your cab was late because you failed to plan for the inclement weather). Bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 1 year.

Trying to compare the civilian legal system to the UCMJ is not for the faint of heart.

The retired Colonel is essence a civilian federal employee - so sure he won't go to a military prison or brig for holding. Basically the "treatment" Manning is being subjected is that of any Soldier in a military holding facility for the level of crime he committed and their assessment of the potential danger he poses to himself or others.

posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 03:14 PM

Originally posted by SiddhartaThis exactly would be the same, if he was a member of the Hell's Angels.

No, as far as I am aware the Hell's Angels has no Hells Angels Code of Hells Angels Justice through which one can appeal to the Supreme Court for redress after due process. I bet they'd just kill him for telling their secrets...your analogy is...a poor one.

Originally posted by SiddhartaFrom 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.

Your point of view is irrelevant as you are not: one, a party to the grievance, two, an entity with jurisdiction over the case. The parties are the US Government, DOD and the US Army and PFC Manning. Jurisdiction is the US Army and the UCMJ and finally on appeal the Supreme Court.

Originally posted by SiddhartaOf course, I demand it from my government. That's why I approve any information of that kind.

While I do not know which country you call home I can assure you that if a Private in the Military or its equivalent there to have divulged state secrets to a third party who posted them on the internet he would face similar or worse treatment and penalties.

Finally when one reads the Manual For Courts Martial one will find that:

Pretrial confinement in the military is similar to the civilian system in some respects and different in others. In the civilian community, police arrest serious offenders and take them to jail. In military cases, servicemembers who are "apprehended" ("arrest" has a different technical meaning in the military) are typically turned over to a member of command authority.

The command then decides whether to confine the member in a military jail (called "brig" or "stockade" or "confinement").

Throughout the confinement review process, a servicemember is provided a military lawyer, at no expense, to assist him or her. The "commander review" must confirm, in writing:

1. that there is probable cause to believe that the servicemember committed an offense triable by courts-martial; 2. there is probable cause to believe that confinement is necessary to prevent the servicemember from fleeing or engaging in serious criminal misconduct;
3.and there is probable cause to believe that lesser forms of restraint would be inadequate.

The "magistrate review" must find, in writing:

1. that there is probable cause to believe that the servicemember committed an offense triable by courts-martial;
2. based on the preponderance of the evidence (51%), there is reason to believe that confinement is necessary to prevent the servicemember from fleeing or engaging in serious criminal misconduct;
3. based on the preponderance of the evidence (51%), there is reason to believe that lesser forms of restraint would be inadequate.

These review requirements may be suspended by the Secretary of Defense when operational necessities make them impractical. For the same reason, these requirements are not applicable to ships at sea.

When his charges are "referred" or presented to a court-martial, the confined servicemember may ask the military judge presiding over the court to review his pretrial confinement again.

If rules were violated, the military judge can release the servicemember, and he can reduce any subsequent sentence, giving additional credit for inappropriate confinement.

PFC Manning will have his day in court and he can claim mistreatment at that time and if he wins - through due process even should he be found guilty may get more credited time for that mistreatment from the reviewing military judge.

edit on 11-1-2011 by Golf66 because: oops

posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 05:08 PM
I am in Germany and no, this treatment would not be possible here.

Human Rights always stand here and even a soldier can claim his rights infront of a civil court and is not delivered to any military "we do it different" treatment. The soldier always is a civilian in uniform.

We just live to see a change in that over here, because the military draft ends in March. But still our Minister of Defense stressed, that there won't be no change of the concept of the "civilian in uniform". They could not do this that easily anyway, because the judiciary is independant from the legislature and even can ask the latter to correct their course, when it is wrong.

In Manning's case you would have to watch closely at every single accusation to see, what it means. Even the former ambassador of the USA said here on tv, that the video of the Baghdad shooting should have been made public. He was unhappy with the cables. So there is a wide range of deciding what is good and what is not.

I had to swear such an oath three times in my life. They all were ridiculous and not from my free will. I simply was told, that I would have to do it and all three times the text was read to me line by line and I had to repeat it. I did not feel bound to that nonsense at all. In the third case I even joked about it with those, who read the nonsense to me. (I was working for a government office on the telephone as a student and the oath included, that I won't free any prisoners. Of course, there were none in that building.)

And of course, we here in Germany are still riddling, how our grandfather's generation could be so stupid, to do everything, they were told to do. I bet, they sweared a stupid oath and thought that this would switch off their brains and make them innocent.

If it really is that bad over there, then I only can say: Good luck with that!

edit on 11-1-2011 by Siddharta because: deleted an s

posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 05:27 PM
reply to post by Siddharta


Please do not take me to be condescending here - I am only trying to point out that he is a member of the military and that the UCMJ - (agree or not) is in fact the system under which his fate would be decided.

he made the decision to join of his own free will.

I agree with the draft things are different; we haven't had one here in years.

I for one took my oaths freely and without reservation and in all things believe a man's (human's that is) word should be his bond.

The contracts into which he entered were clear as to the consequences for breaking them - I have signed the documents myself. Pretty clear that once you agree to protect the secrets you have access to you break that contract at risk of incarceration or in some cases (time of war) death.

There is a way to do something and a way not to - he could have "blown the whistle" to his congressperson, his Commander, or any number of individuals who could have helped him reconcile his issues without causing harm to national security.

He would have likely not gotten the result he wanted but he could have been released from having to take part in the operations any longer.

posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 06:00 PM
We have no problems with each other, Golf.

You are explaining the situation of a member of the military in the US and somehow you are a spotter with this.
I try to tell you, that other countries like mine, don't accept those "be with us or you are against us" logic.

Maybe that Manning has to fear the worst in your country, but that does not make it right.

He is not convicted yet, but treated worse than others, who are convicted of much worse crimes. This should not be possible in a civilized country.

Since the country of the free invented Guantanamo, the view has become very very clouded. If military laws reign - as if they were in supra statutory necessity - then we shouldn't call the USA country of the free anymore.

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 10:50 AM
reply to post by Siddharta

Again with the Gitmo.. Please sid do me a favor and read up on Article 52 of the UN Charter, as well as the Geneva convention. Since these people are not covered under the Geneva convention, it requires the country who captured them to have a system in place, either by military tribunal or civilian court, in order to try these people.

The other issue people seem to ignore with the overall situation, is the war is still continuing. Durring WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Korea, the 1st and 2nd Gulfwar, Russians in Afghanistan, the Frnech in Vietnam etc etc etc. When they are captured, they are held in prisons/jails/camps etc etc etc until such time the war is over, they are freed, they escape or a prisoner exchange is offered. I fail to understand why people continually ignore this fact, that the US is at war.

There have been overatures from the Taliban / Al-Queida about prisoner exchanges, and like what occurs in Israel its a you release 400 of ours and we will release 1 of yours.

As far as manning goes, I have to agree with Golf. The arguments I see people making is based on their own personal beleifs, and even legal requirements of other countries. Manning knew what he was doing and got caught because he outed himself. The argument he was a whistel blower would of been more beleivable and defndable had he stopped at the helicopter shooting the jouranlists. Instead, he continued and by doing so, went beyond what a whistleblower is which made him inelligable for whistleblower protections.

As far as the use of Solitary confinment, I really think people need to go back and look at US laws, UN laws, EU laws, since these are what people like to invoke.

Both the UN and EU comissions on Human Rights allow for the use of solitary confinement in certain conditions, up to and including if c oconspiritors are at large, security precautions, obstruction of judicial proceedings, potential destruction of evidence, etc etc, including your country of Germany.

edit on 12-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 06:22 PM
reply to post by Xcathdra

The statement, that the USA is at war is right. Two wars, which are inacceptable by international measures. This makes the USA an enemy to many and results in critique even by friendly states.

You should not be at war.

You say, the Baghdad video would be okay, but not the other things? There you are in agreement with many others. Still a US court asked Twitter for informations on Birgitta Jonsdottir, who is a member of the Islandic parliament, and Rop Gonggrijk, who has developed the Dutch internet, because they were mentioned as two people, who helped to edit and put up this video on the internet.

They also asked for informations on Jackob Applebaum, one of the guys who put up Tor. And he just had to live to see, that they put him out "at random" on the airport for the second time. A customs officer slipped and told him, that he had written about his flight on Twitter - so much about random.

This is all a big farce and people, who are connected, are treated like criminals. If you don't smell the #, maybe it is because you smell it every day. Maybe you should change your underwear.

posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 03:22 AM
Some updates:

On Sunday David House, who regularly visits Bradley Manning at Quantico, was kept under temporary arrest, when he arrived at the base. When he and his accompanist Jane Hamsher were allowed to leave the visiting time was over and House was not allowed to see Manning at all.

NBC now reports, that they were told by military officials, that they cannot find a direct link between Manning and Julian Assange. They also admitted, that Commander James Averhart exceeded his authority, when he put Manning on suicide watch for two days last week. (Not to confuse with the Prevention Of Injury assignement which is used on Manning anyway.)


Amnesty International wrote to Robert Gates, to review the restrictions:

Amnesty International

edit on 25-1-2011 by Siddharta because: changed m to b

posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 12:02 PM
reply to post by Siddharta

I have stated before I have no issues when criminal behavior is exposed, even at the Government level. The issue I have is when information beyond criminal behavior is exposed. To me its irresponsible to assume that dumping classified information won't result in problems.

As far as the 2 wars we are currently involved in... We can argue back and forth all we want there, and I dont think we will find common ground. I see it from the viewpoint of being an American, you from a GErman (I assume your a German national from your comments, but I could be wrong so no offense).

The Government is not asking for information, they are issuing subpoenas to get the information. A Subpoena is a commonly used legal document to help define the scope of an investigation. It does not mean the information requested will expose wrongdoing. The primary goal of any investigation is not only to find suspects, but to clear suspects of any wrongdoing.

Manning is charged, and the ivnestigation is ongoing as to whether or not he acted alone, or if it was part of a larger conspiracy. That is the current investigation, which is exploring the conspiracy portion.

All the info I have seen about Mr. House is he was detained at Chicago airport after returning from a trip to Mexico., not hte military base. The report of no info linking manning to assange is intresting since it actually contradicts statements manning made, so I am curious about the info behind that revalation.

As far as Commander James Averhart, the Staff JAG pointed that out, and the status was changed.

Either or, the investigation continues.. We shall see what if anything comes next.

posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 03:23 AM

Originally posted by Xcathdra
All the info I have seen about Mr. House is he was detained at Chicago airport after returning from a trip to Mexico., not hte military base.

The incident happened last Sunday. David House and Jane Hamsher twittert it as it occured.
Here is an article about what happened:
Bradley Manning’s Primary Visitor Detained at Quantico

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in