Bradley Manning Apologizes

You said

Originally posted by crazyewok
He has been:
Totured
Bribed
Threatend with some horrible
.

I asked for proof because i have never heard of any of this. did he say it or is it just opinion?

reply to post by thesaneone

Nevertheless, Manning is in "maximum custody." Also, under a "Protection of Injury" order, he is confined to his cell for 23 hours a day, even though his lawyer says a psychologist has determined he isn't a threat to himself. His lawyer also says that Manning is denied sheets and is unable to exercise in his cell, and that he is not allowed to sleep between 5 a.m. and 8 p.m. If he attempts to sleep during those hours, he is made to sit up or stand by his guards.

articles.latimes.com...

“It’s an awful thing, solitary,” John McCain wrote of his five and a half years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam—more than two years of it spent in isolation in a fifteen-by-fifteen-foot cell, unable to communicate with other P.O.W.s except by tap code, secreted notes, or by speaking into an enamel cup pressed against the wall. “It crushes your spirit and weakens your resistance more effectively than any other form of mistreatment.”

www.newyorker.com...

Manning was held in extreme solitary confinement. Something that former POW's such as John McCain have reported as being terrible. Extreme solitary confinement is a form of psychological torture as human beings are actually very social creatures (even you lot! lol). It slows down the thinking. It can induce self-mutilation. It can even transform the physiological processes of the brain:

And what happened to them was physical. EEG studies going back to the nineteen-sixties have shown diffuse slowing of brain waves in prisoners after a week or more of solitary confinement. In 1992, fifty-seven prisoners of war, released after an average of six months in detention camps in the former Yugoslavia, were examined using EEG-like tests. The recordings revealed brain abnormalities months afterward; the most severe were found in prisoners who had endured either head trauma sufficient to render them unconscious or, yes, solitary confinement. (New Yorker)

So you bet, being held in extreme solitary confinement for 23 hours a day is absolutely torture. It literally breaks the mind. We, as a nation, learned how effective solitary confinement was in the Korean War, courtesy of the North Koreans. But what about the restriction on keeping Manning from sleeping between the hours of 5 am to 8 pm. Why the heck would they do that?

Individuals experiencing such environmental restriction find it difficult to maintain a normal pattern of daytime alertness and nighttime sleep. They often find themselves incapable of resisting their bed during the day—incapable of resisting the paralyzing effect of their stupor—and yet incapable of any restful sleep at night.

law.wustl.edu...

So...extreme solitary confinement not only disrupts the way the brain functions but affects the internal clock to the extent where the prisoner starts having their diurnal sleep schedule obliterated. But they wouldn't let Manning sleep during the day. In other words, Manning not only endured extreme solitary confinement but also sleep deprivation when his diurnal schedule started blowing out. Which is really looking more and more like what the North Koreans did to our American soldiers in the Korean War that induced them to say all sorts of things.

Sure looks like torture to me.

reply to post by thesaneone


Opinion the same as yours.

reply to post by Skyfloating


This isn't about him getting "beat down" emotionally, mentally. This is about REALITY.

This is about Manning getting sentenced, and the possibility of years served. My question is if he had to do it again, would he? My Opinion? Nope.

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by Skyfloating

 

This isn't about him getting "beat down" emotionally, mentally. This is about REALITY.

This is about Manning getting sentenced, and the possibility of years served. My question is if he had to do it again, would he? My Opinion? Nope.

Same thing. He been beat down emotionaly and mentaly.

reply to post by WhiteAlice


Thank you for reply.



I did not think that being in prison is suppose to be easy, we do know he broke the law even if you dont agree with the law he still broke it as for them making him stay awake from 5-8 I see no problem with that hell most people in the world stay awake for 16- 18 hours a day.

Originally posted by thesaneone
reply to post by WhiteAlice

 

Thank you for reply.

I did not think that being in prison is suppose to be easy, we do know he broke the law even if you dont agree with the law he still broke it as for them making him stay awake from 5-8 I see no problem with that hell most people in the world stay awake for 16- 18 hours a day.

Prison isn't supposed to be easy. However, he hadn't even been tried yet so technically, he was being held for trial and not yet been found guilty of breaking any laws while they were doing this with him. You also opted to ignore the aspect of the change of sleep cycle relating to extreme solitary confinement. I'll repeat it again though I'm sure you'll ignore it again. Extreme sleep deprivation induces a blown sleep cycle so that the prisoner has extreme difficulties with sleeping at night and is compelled to sleep during the day. I sincerely doubt that Manning has been getting a whole lot of sleep while he was being held for trial. Not really surprised you ignored that, all things considered.

reply to post by WhiteAlice


I did not ignore anything, maybe just maybe he couldn't sleep because he knew he screwed up and his life was over with he was probably asking himself why he did this to himself over and over again.

reply to post by Skyfloating


My guess would be it is part of the plea agreement

We will most likely never know as those are done behind closed doors in the judges chambers.

reply to post by Skyfloating


For an omelet to be made, eggs must be broken. So here's my question: is Mr. Manning apologizing for breaking the eggs, or making an omelet?

reply to post by thesaneone


I wish there was a snoozing emoticon I could use to respond to you, because it would be the perfect example of how deep of a slumber you're in.

Your username is actually quite funny considering what you're saying.

reply to post by DivisiveConformity


Thanks for adding to the thread.
Instead of attacking me why not try to contribute to the subject give me real proof that he is being tortured,

reply to post by Skyfloating


His apology was coerced. His gender identity and sexual orientation are propaganda. I do understand that that's an issue that could affect which inhumane prison he is buried in for the rest of his life, but the release of that personal information to the public is propaganda. That issue could easily be sorted out behind the same secret veil this trial is being conducted behind.

Bradley Manning did nothing wrong. The government loves to tell us "if you're doing nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide" in response to our criticism of their overreaching surveillance programs. Yet when their actions are exposed, this is how they react. If they're doing nothing wrong, they should have nothing to hide, right? The American people don't seem to make that correlation, judging by the fact that we have Kool-Aid (Produced by Monsanto. FDA Approved. Made in China.) drinkers gathered like a witch-hunt mob applauding Manning's demise for making the sacrifice to expose war crimes and political corruption.

This is an absolute disgrace. Bradley Manning is innocent. Edward Snowden is innocent. The ones who should be subjected to waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and solitary confinement for the rest of their lives are the ones running this government.

reply to post by thesaneone


Of course no "real proof" exists. Why would it? You think they'd really get in front of a podium and state "hey guys, we're torturing him, don't worry!"

Sometimes common sense is necessary to read between the lines. Clearly you don't have that ability.

reply to post by DivisiveConformity


I have a friend who is currently in the Air Force. Just concluded his training recently, actually. He really couldn't answer my questions in any way that was particularly fulfilling, but given my familiarity with his character and his capacities for seeing the larger picture in a way that's productive for all involved, I was inclined to take his word for it when he gave me the immensely sparing answer: "Snowden was a jerk. What he did was stupid and harmful."

Given his connections and his education, it really makes me wonder how much we know about Snowden's efforts to unveil the criminal streak in our government - as well as every other whistleblower.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


So you agree with your friend that what Snowden did was wrong?

Please tell me how we are ever supposed to know about the secret policies and secret actions of this government without whistleblowers? Are we supposed to trust that the government is going to expose their illegal actions themselves? Or are we supposed to trust that they won't do anything illegal?

That's too much of a stretch for me. I don't trust them.

reply to post by DivisiveConformity


Stop thinking with your feelings. He was found guilty bottom line, no matter how wrong you think it is he was found guilty and he apologized.

reply to post by thesaneone


Believe it or not, just because something is "illegal" doesn't make it "wrong". By that logic, anything the government deems a threat to their power, they can make "illegal". In fact, this case is a perfect example of that.

But it seems you support that kind of tyranny. Pretty sad, really.

reply to post by DivisiveConformity


What

something illegal is wrong by definition.

reply to post by DivisiveConformity

So you agree with your friend that what Snowden did was wrong?

Quote me where I said that, if you would.

To answer your question, I don't agree with him outright. I acknowledged that he is in a better position for deciding what Snowden's actions have cost the government, and whether it was a worthwhile cost. I also acknowledged that I'm not very "in the know" when it comes to what Snowden revealed, whether it was necessary to reveal it, whether we had anything to worry about, whether it was legal or not, and all of the details in between.

As such, I was conceding his superiority as far as being a reliable informant goes, in comparison to myself. If nothing else, I was throwing it out there as a "well, this guy is a pretty cool and compassionate character, and he disagrees with what Snowden did, so there's that to consider".

Please tell me how we are ever supposed to know about the secret policies and secret actions of this government without whistleblowers? Are we supposed to trust that the government is going to expose their illegal actions themselves? Or are we supposed to trust that they won't do anything illegal?

I am not in the position to make an informed judgment. Your approach requires the assumption that we can rely upon the government to violate its own edicts. I don't feel comfortable forming a concrete conclusion regarding that possibility.

That's too much of a stretch for me. I don't trust them.

Neither do I, but even distrust features a rainbow of shades. How far are you willing to distrust them?