Bradley Manning

[onmyknees]

I'd like to engage Ben, but I'm not going to even look at that You Tube vid. If it's from the Ed show, it needs to be fact checked 10 ways to Sunday. There's more misinformation and distortions comming from that show than from a KGB double agent.
Go back to the drawing board and get us some reliable info, cause that's not gettin' it !!!!!!!!

[onmyknees]

Ed Schultz Stumbles Into Candor, Reveals Actual Reason for Lack of GOP guests

By Jack Coleman | December 26, 2010 | 07:55

Ed Schultz, liberal radio host and MSNBC action hero, has a pronounced aversion to Republicans/conservatives/right wingers coming on his cable show.

Why? Depends on when Schultz explains the reason.

Here he was on his radio show this past Monday (audio) --

You do not see Republican senators on "The Ed Show" on MSNBC. I don't want 'em! I don't want 'em and I'm getting sick of righties on my show anyway. I'm getting sick, I mean, we might have 2011, there might not be any freakin' righties. I'm sick of 'em!

All of a day later, again on his radio show, Schultz let slip the actual reason for his dearth of conservative guests. Turns out that Schultz has sought their company, but, go figure, they're disinclined (audio) --

Of course, I don't put right-wing people on that are of any significance. (laughs) Um, 'cause they won't come on the program. And I don't want to talk to 'em anyway.

Schultz discovering his lack of interest in "right-wing people" -- after they turn down his invitations. Those guests were probably sour anyway.

[Ben]

I think we disagree on everything -- ha! ha! ha! And that's okay. We've different opinions... and come from opposite sides of the political spectrum. That's fine.
Our experiences shape our opinions. (What's the saying: a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged.)
Anyway, we disagree. That's fine.
Oh, we both like Mint... --

[Ben]

What About the Others?

Bradley Manning, Solitary Confinement and Selective Outrage

By JEAN CASELLA and JAMES RIDGEWAY

For the past few weeks, progressive online media sources have been alive with outrage against the conditions in which accused Wikileaker Bradley Manning is being held. Manning is in 23-hour-a-day solitary confinement at a Marine brig in Quantico, Virginia, denied sunlight, exercise, possessions, and all but the most limited contact with family and friends. He has now been in isolation for more than seven months. The cruel and inhuman conditions of his detention, first widely publicized by Glenn Greenwald on Salon and expanded upon by others, are now being discussed, lamented, and protested throughout the progressive blogosphere (ourselves included). Few of those taking part in the conversation hesitate to describe Manning's situation as torture.
Meanwhile, here at Solitary Watch, we've been receiving calls and emails from our modest band of readers, all of them saying more or less the same thing: We're glad Bradley Manning's treatment is getting some attention, but what about the tens of thousands of others who are languishing in solitary confinement in U.S. prisons and jails? According to available data, there are some 25,000 inmates in long-term isolation in the nation's supermax prisons, and as many as 80,000 more in solitary in other prisons and jails. Where is the outrage–even among progressives–for these forgotten souls? Where, even, is some acknowledgment of their existence?
A few of the writers who champion Manning have, to be fair, mentioned in passing the widespread use of solitary confinement in the United States. A very few have gone further: One powerful piece by Lynn Parramore on New Deal 2.0, for example, uses the Manning case as an opportunity to document and denounce the brutal realities of solitary confinement. She urges readers to "remember the thousands of people being tortured in American prisons, including Bradley Manning, and let us send our own message back to our government: We are Americans…Most assuredly, we will not accept torture in our name. Not of the accused. Not of the mentally ill. Not even of convicted criminals."
But Parramore's piece is an anomaly. More often, progressive writers–and their readers, if comments are any measure–have gone to some lengths to distinguish Bradley Manning from the masses of other prisoners being held in similar conditions. Whether explicitly or implicitly, they depict Manning as exceptional, and therefore less deserving of his treatment and more worthy of our concern.
Frequently, writers and readers make the point that Manning is being subjected to these condition while he is merely accused , rather than convicted, of a crime. Perhaps they need to be introduced to the 15-year-old boy who, along with several dozen other juveniles, is being held is solitary in a jail in Harris County, Texas, while he awaits trial on a robbery charge. He is one of hundreds–if not thousands–of prisoners being held in pre-trial solitary confinement, for one reason or another, on any given day in America. Most of them lack decent legal representation, or are simply too poor to make bail.
We have also seen articles suggesting that the treatment Manning is receiving is worse than the standard for solitary confinement, since he is deprived even of a pillow or sheets for his bed. Their authors should review the case of the prisoners held in the St. Tammany Parish Jail in rural Louisiana. According to a brief by the Louisiana ACLU, "After the jail determines a prisoner is suicidal, the prisoner is stripped half-naked and placed in a 3′ x 3′ metal cage with no shoes, bed, blanket or toilet…Prisoners report they must curl up on the floor to sleep because the cages are too small to let them lie down. Guards frequently ignore repeated requests to use the bathroom, forcing some desperate people to urinate in discarded containers…People have been reportedly held in these cages for days, weeks, and months." The cells are one-fourth the size mandated by local law for caged dogs.
There is, rightly, concern over the damage being done to Manning's mental health by seven months in solitary. Seldom mentioned is the fact that an estimated one-third to one-half of the residents of America's isolation units suffer from mental illness, and solitary confinement cells have, in effect, become our new asylums. Witness the ACLU of Montana's brief on a 17-year-old mentally ill inmate who "was so traumatized by his deplorable treatment in the Montana State Prison that he twice attempted to kill himself by biting through the skin on his wrist to puncture a vein." During his ten months in solitary confinement, he was tasered, pepper sprayed, and stripped naked in view of other inmates, and "his mental health treatment consists of a prison staff member knocking on his door once a week and asking if he has any concerns."
Finally, many have argued that the nature of Manning's alleged crimes renders him a heroic political prisoner, rather than a "common" criminal. Those who take this line might want to look into the "Communications Management Units" at two federal prisons, where, according to a lawsuit filed last year by the Center for Constitutional Rights, prisoners are placed in extreme isolation "for their constitutionally protected religious beliefs, unpopular political views, or in retaliation for challenging poor treatment or other rights violations in the federal prison system." Or they might investigate the aftermath of the recent prison strike in Georgia, in which several inmates have reportedly been thrown into solitary for leading a nonviolent protest against prison conditions.
All of these cases are "exceptional," but only in that they earned the attention of some journalist or advocate. Most prisoners held in solitary confinement are, by design, silent and silenced. Most of their stories–tens of thousands of them–are never told at all. And solitary confinement is now used as a disciplinary measure of first resort in prisons and jails across the country, so its use is anything but exceptional.
All across America, inmates are placed in isolation for weeks or months not only for fighting with other inmates or guards, but for being "disruptive" or disobeying orders; for being identified as a gang member (often by a prison snitch or the wrong kind of tattoo); or for having contraband, which can include not only a weapon but a joint, a cell phone, or too many postage stamps. In Virginia, a dozen Rastafarians were in solitary for more than a decade because they refused to cut their dreadlocks, in violation of the prison code. In many prisons, juveniles and rape victims are isolated "for their own protection" in conditions identical to those used for punishment. And for more serious crimes, the isolation simply becomes more extreme, and more permanent: In Louisiana, two men convicted of killing a prison guard have been in solitary confinement for 38 years.
Moreover, if solitary confinement is torture–or at the very least, cruel and inhuman punishment–it shouldn't matter what a prisoner has done to end up there. As Lynn Parramore writes, "The placement of human beings in solitary confinement is not a measure of their depravity. It is a measure of our own."
The treatment of Bradley Manning, which has introduced many on the left to the torment of solitary confinement, may present an opportunity for them to measure their own humanity. They might begin by asking themselves whether prison torture is wrong, and worthy of their attention and outrage, only when it is committed against people whose actions they admire.

Jean Casella and James Ridgeway edit Solitary Watch, where this essay originally appeared.

[NYBURBS]

I'm curious as to your motivation here Burbs. I understand Ben is obsessed with Assange and Manning, and if he could get his hands on secret documents, he'd be on his way to the NY Times editorial board faster than you could snap your fingers. That's his gig...he's either an anarchist or simply doesn't understand the need for government secrets. I don't think he's a bad guy...just naive. I understand on a humanistic level some might muster some compassion for Manning, but it's clear to me he's a disgruntled DADT supporter, and has done much damage to our country. One might be able to make a case for Assange, but not Manning. I know younger people can often times make mistakes, but we're not talking about DUI here...this is stealing confidential government documents and leaking them to the owner of a web site for one reason only. To damage the US. I have compassion for folks struggling in crime ridden neighborhoods trying to raise families, or steel workers that have no hope of returning to work, but I won't be contributing a dime to Manning. He'll never be a free man again. I wouldn't use the word noble in the same sentence with Manning and Assange. Let's ask Ben where the 50K that Assange promised to Manning's defense fund will finally be given. What say you Ben ?????????????? And no copying and pasting allowed.

I can understand where you're coming from, I just happen to have a different perspective. I don't see our government as being all that benevolent (thought it is perhaps more benign than many other governments in the world). There has been an unchecked growth of the "national security" infrastructure in this nation for many, many years; and that has only been possible in large part due to ever increasing levels of secrecy.

I see a distinct difference between say, tactical information used in defensive planning and strategic information that is used to make policy decisions. That much of the information that goes toward the former is kept secret is understandable, that so much that informs the latter is kept secret is not acceptable in my view.

What Manning was alleged to have released amounts in large part to strategic information, the kind that should inform public debate. That he will pay a large price for any such disclosure is all but certain; however, that doesn't make his actions evil by default. History is filled with examples of persons pushing back against the status quo and paying a hefty price for it, but hindsight and social change usually lead to a posthumous vindication of their actions.

Lastly, I wouldn't be surprised if he had other motives that lead him to disclose the information. Most whistle blowers have some sort of axe to grind, but that does not change the fact that this disclosure has brought about a much needed debate over the level of secrecy in our government.

[Ben]

Psychologists for Social Responsibility is deeply concerned about the pretrial detention conditions of alleged Wikileaks source PFC Bradley Manning, including solitary confinement for over five months, a forced lack of exercise, and possible sleep deprivation. It has been reported by his attorney and a visitor that Manning's mental health is suffering from his treatment. As a response, PsySR has issued this Open Letter to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

PsySR Open Letter on PFC
Bradley Manning's Solitary Confinement

January 3, 2011
The Honorable Robert M. Gates
Secretary
100 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301

Dear Mr. Secretary:
Psychologists for Social Responsibility (PsySR) is deeply concerned about the conditions under which PFC Bradley Manning is being held at the Quantico Marine Corps Base in Virginia. It has been reported and verified by his attorney that PFC Manning has been held in solitary confinement since July of 2010. He reportedly is held in his cell for approximately 23 hours a day, a cell approximately six feet wide and twelve feet in length, with a bed, a drinking fountain, and a toilet. For no discernable reason other than punishment, he is forbidden from exercising in his cell and is provided minimal access to exercise outside his cell. Further, despite having virtually nothing to do, he is forbidden to sleep during the day and often has his sleep at night disrupted.
As an organization of psychologists and other mental health professionals, PsySR is aware that solitary confinement can have severely deleterious effects on the psychological well-being of those subjected to it. We therefore call for a revision in the conditions of PFC Manning’s incarceration while he awaits trial, based on the exhaustive documentation and research that have determined that solitary confinement is, at the very least, a form of cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment in violation of U.S. law.
In the majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court case Medley, Petitioner, 134 U.S. 1690 (1890), U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Freeman Miller wrote, "A considerable number of the prisoners fell, after even a short confinement, into a semi-fatuous condition, from which it was next to impossible to arouse them, and others became violently insane; others still, committed suicide; while those who stood the ordeal better were not generally reformed, and in most cases did not recover sufficient mental activity to be of any subsequent service to the community." Scientific investigations since 1890 have confirmed in troubling detail the irreversible physiological changes in brain functioning from the trauma of solitary confinement.
As expressed by Dr. Craig Haney, a psychologist and expert in the assessment of institutional environments, “Empirical research on solitary and supermax-like confinement has consistently and unequivocally documented the harmful consequences of living in these kinds of environments . . . Evidence of these negative psychological effects comes from personal accounts, descriptive studies, and systematic research on solitary and supermax-type confinement, conducted over a period of four decades, by researchers from several different continents who had diverse backgrounds and a wide range of professional expertise… [D]irect studies of prison isolation have documented an extremely broad range of harmful psychological reactions. These effects include increases in the following potentially damaging symptoms and problematic behaviors: negative attitudes and affect, insomnia, anxiety, panic, withdrawal, hypersensitivity, ruminations, cognitive dysfunction, hallucinations, loss of control, irritability, aggression, and rage, paranoia, hopelessness, lethargy, depression, a sense of impending emotional breakdown, self-mutilation, and suicidal ideation and behavior” (pp. 130-131, references removed).
Dr. Haney concludes, “To summarize, there is not a single published study of solitary or supermax-like confinement in which non-voluntary confinement lasting for longer than 10 days where participants were unable to terminate their isolation at will that failed to result in negative psychological effects” (p. 132).
We are aware that prison spokesperson First Lieutenant Brian Villiard has told AFP that Manning is considered a “maximum confinement detainee,” as he is considered a national security risk. But no such putative risk can justify keeping someone not convicted of a crime in conditions likely to cause serious harm to his mental health. Further, history suggests that solitary confinement, rather than being a rational response to a risk, is more often used as a punishment for someone who is considered to be a member of a despised or “dangerous” group. In any case, PFC Manning has not been convicted of a crime and, under our system of justice, is at this point presumed to be innocent.
The conditions of isolation to which PFC Manning, as well as many other U.S. prisoners are subjected, are sufficiently harsh as to have aroused international concern. The most recent report of the UN Committee against Torture included in its Conclusions and Recommendations for the United States the following article 36:
"The Committee remains concerned about the extremely harsh regime imposed on detainees in “supermaximum prisons”. The Committee is concerned about the prolonged isolation periods detainees are subjected to, the effect such treatment has on their mental health, and that its purpose may be retribution, in which case it would constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (art. 16).
The State party should review the regime imposed on detainees in “supermaximum prisons”, in particular the practice of prolonged isolation." (Emphasis in original.)
In addition to the needless brutality of the conditions to which PFC Manning is being subjected, PsySR is concerned that the coercive nature of these conditions -- along with their serious psychological effects such as depression, paranoia, or hopelessness -- may undermine his ability to meaningfully cooperate with his defense, undermining his right to a fair trial. Coercive conditions of detention also increase the likelihood of the prisoner “cooperating” in order to improve those circumstances, even to the extent of giving false testimony. Thus, such harsh conditions are counter to the interests of justice.
Given the nature and effects of the solitary confinement to which PFC Manning is being subjected, Mr. Secretary, Psychologists for Social Responsibility calls upon you to rectify the inhumane, harmful, and counterproductive treatment of PFC Bradley Manning immediately.
Sincerely,
Trudy Bond, Ph.D.
Psychologists for Social Responsibility Steering Committee
Stephen Soldz, Ph.D.
President, Psychologists for Social Responsibility
For the Psychologists for Social Responsibility Steering Committee

[Ben]

Bradley Manning could face death: for what?

By Glenn Greenwald

The U.S. Army yesterday announced that it has filed 22 additional charges against Bradley Manning, the Private accused of being the source for hundreds of thousands of documents (as well as this still-striking video) published over the last year by WikiLeaks. Most of the charges add little to the ones already filed, but the most serious new charge is for "aiding the enemy," a capital offense under Article 104 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Although military prosecutors stated that they intend to seek life imprisonment rather than the death penalty for this alleged crime, the military tribunal is still empowered to sentence Manning to death if convicted.

Article 104 -- which, like all provisions of the UCMJ, applies only to members of the military -- is incredibly broad. Under 104(b) -- almost certainly the provision to be applied -- a person is guilty if he "gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly" (emphasis added), and, if convicted, "shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct." The charge sheet filed by the Army is quite vague and neither indicates what specifically Manning did to violate this provision nor the identity of the "enemy" to whom he is alleged to have given intelligence. There are, as international law professor Kevin Jon Heller notes, only two possibilities, and both are disturbing in their own way.
In light of the implicit allegation that Manning transmitted this material to WikiLeaks, it is quite possible that WikiLeaks is the "enemy" referenced by Article 104, i.e., that the U.S. military now openly decrees (as opposed to secretly declaring) that the whistle-blowing group is an "enemy" of the U.S. More likely, the Army will contend that by transmitting classified documents to WikiLeaks for intended publication, Manning "indirectly" furnished those documents to Al Qaeda and the Taliban by enabling those groups to learn their contents. That would mean that it is a capital offense not only to furnish intelligence specifically and intentionally to actual enemies -- the way that, say, Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen were convicted of passing intelligence to the Soviet Union -- but also to act as a whistle-blower by leaking classified information to a newspaper with the intent that it be published to the world. Logically, if one can "aid the enemy" even by leaking to WikiLeaks, then one can also be guilty of this crime by leaking to The New York Times.
The dangers of such a theory are obvious. Indeed, even the military itself recognizes those dangers, as the Military Judges' Handbook specifically requires that if this theory is used -- that one has "aided the enemy" through "indirect" transmission via leaks to a newspaper -- then it must be proven that the "communication was intended to reach the enemy." None of the other ways of violating this provision contain an intent element; recognizing how extreme it is to prosecute someone for "aiding the enemy" who does nothing more than leak to a media outlet, this is the only means of violating Article 104 that imposes an intent requirement.
But does anyone actually believe that Manning's intent was to ensure receipt of this material to the Taliban, as opposed to exposing for the public what he believed to be serious American wrongdoing and to trigger reforms? This new charge would do nothing less than convert whistle-blowing by members of the military into a hanging offense. Indeed, in the purported chat logs between Manning and government informant Adrian Lamo, Lamo asked Manning why he didn't sell this information to a foreign government and get rich off it, and this is what Manning replied:

because it's public data. . . . it belongs in the public domain -information should be free - it belongs in the public domain - because another state would just take advantage of the information… try and get some edge - if its out in the open . . . it should be a public good

This prosecution theory would convert acts of whistle-blowing into a capital offense.
Worse still, whatever Manning's behavior was in terms of "aiding the enemy," that exact same behavior was engaged in by The New York Times, The Guardian, and numerous other newspapers that published these classified documents and thus enabled the Taliban, Al Qaeda and all the other Enemies Du Jour to access them. As Professor Heller put it:

If Manning has aided the enemy, so has any media organization that published the information he allegedly stole. Nothing in Article 104 requires proof that the defendant illegally acquired the information that aided the enemy. As a result, if the mere act of ensuring that harmful information is published on the internet qualifies either as indirectly "giving intelligence to the enemy" (if the military can prove an enemy actually accessed the information) or as indirectly "communicating with the enemy" (because any reasonable person knows that enemies can access information on the internet), there is no relevant factual difference between Manning and a media organization that published the relevant information.

As Heller notes, since the UCMJ applies only to members of the military, newspapers (or WikiLeaks) couldn't actually be charged under Article 104; still, "there is still something profoundly disturbing about the prospect of convicting Manning and sentencing him to life imprisonment [GG: or the death penalty] for doing exactly what media organizations did, as well." It's true that members of the military have legal duties that others do not have -- including the duty not to leak classified information -- but this incredibly expansive interpretation of what it means to "aid the enemy" dangerously encompasses all sorts of legitimate press and speech activities, especially when combined with the Obama administration's escalating war on whistle-blowing and the journalists who expose government secrets. This is yet another step in infecting the law with doctrines of Endless War and its accompanying mentality.
* * * *
The Manning controversy tracks almost perfectly the one from 40 years ago involving Daniel Ellberg's leak of thousands of pages of the Top Secret Pentagon Papers. Not even Manning's most ardent defenders deny that he broke the law if he was actually the leaker (just as nobody denies that Ellsberg broke the law).
Nonetheless, the notion that Daniel Ellberg's leak was noble and justified has become consecrated orthodoxy among most Democrats, progressives and even among the American media -- because it's very easy to cheer on challenges to authority and political power from four decades earlier, when the targets of the whistle-blowing no longer wield power. Yet even though Manning's actions are so similar to Ellsberg's both in intent and effect -- as Ellsberg himself has repeatedly stated -- the reaction to Manning is radically different: both because Manning's actions challenge the policy of current authorities who actually wield power now and because it's a Democratic President prosecuting him. That Ellsberg is viewed as a hero while Manning is viewed as a death-deserving villain makes no sense.
It's at least intellectually coherent (though quite misguided) to see both Ellsberg and Manning as criminal demons who deserve to be locked away forever (the same things said now to condemn Manning were said back then about Ellsberg, including from the Supreme Court: "revelation of [the Pentagon Papers] will do substantial damage to public interests" (Justice White). But it's incoherent in the extreme to praise Ellsberg while condemning Manning (particularly since everything Manning is accused of leaking bears a much lower secrecy designation than the massive amounts of Top Secret material leaked by Ellsberg).
Critically, if one believes the authenticity of the purported Manning/Lamo chat log snippets selectively released by Wired, then Manning was very clear about why he decided to leak these materials: he sought to trigger worldwide reforms of government wrongdoing exposed by these documents:

Lamo: what's your endgame plan, then?. . .
Manning: well, it was forwarded to [WikiLeaks] - and god knows what happens now - hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms - if not, than [sic] we're doomed - as a species - i will officially give up on the society we have if nothing happens - the reaction to the video gave me immense hope; CNN's iReport was overwhelmed; Twitter exploded - people who saw, knew there was something wrong . . . Washington Post sat on the video… David Finkel acquired a copy while embedded out here. . . . - i want people to see the truth . . . regardless of who they are . . . because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public.

This leaves little doubt about Manning's motives. And there is also little doubt that Manning has achieved those ambitious and noble goals on multiple levels. Although the extent is reasonably in dispute, even WikiLeaks' most embittered antagonists -- such as New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller -- acknowledge that the release of the diplomatic cables played some role in the uprising in Tunisia, which in turn sparked similar uprisings of historic significance throughout the Middle East. From Keller:

For those who do not follow these subjects as closely, the stories are an opportunity to learn more. If a project like this makes readers pay attention, think harder, understand more clearly what is being done in their name, then we have performed a public service. And that does not count the impact of these revelations on the people most touched by them. WikiLeaks cables in which American diplomats recount the extravagant corruption of Tunisia's rulers helped fuel a popular uprising that has overthrown the government.

Beyond that, the documents Manning is alleged to have leaked have revealed a wide range of corruption, deceit and illegality by government officials around the world. They have forced Americans to confront the realities of the wars they endlessly wage and support. And it is virtually impossible to read news articles about any significant event in the Middle East without encountering references to important information revealed by WikiLeaks documents.
In sum, if one believes the allegations and the chat logs, Manning's actions have already led to many of the "reforms" and increased awareness he hoped to achieve. Thus do we have the strange spectacle of Americans cheering on the democratic uprisings in the Middle East and empathizing with the protesters, all while revering American political leaders who for years helped sustained the dictatorships which oppressed them and disdaining those (Manning) who may have played a role in sparking the protests. More revealingly, American political leaders responsible for grave atrocities (like this and this and this) are treated like peace-loving statesmen and honored dignitaries, while those who heroically risk their lives to expose and end that wrongdoing (Manning, and Ellsberg before him) are thrown into a cage, threatened with death, and scorned by All Decent People.
Part of what explains that is just the standard authoritarian mindset: even heinous acts committed under sanction of officialdom are treated as inherently legitimate, while those who challenge those authorities are scorned. But there's something broader that accounts for the almost universal disdain directed at Manning: these leaks showed us the true face of American conduct in the world. Those who reveal truths which most people would prefer to ignore are typically hated, and are often those most severely punished.

* * * * *
As a reminder: Manning -- convicted of nothing -- continues to be held in 23-hour/day, highly repressive solitary confinement; despite protests from Amnesty International, a formal investigation by the U.N.'s top torture official, and the replacement of the brig commander, Manning has been held that way for ten straight months, with no change in sight.

[onmyknees]

Ben....remember what Kevin Bacon said to Tom Cruise when referring to the Jack Nicholson character in the military movie...A Few Good Men? Let me remind you.....

"you're boy's going down Ben, and there's nothing you and Greenwald can do about it"

OK...so I paraphrased a little, but you get the picture !!!!! LMAO

[Ben]

For those interested in helping in this kid's legal defense, you can go to the following link and click on the donate button:

http://www.bradleymanning.org/

As a background note, Bradley Manning has been charged with leaking government documents that ended up on wikileaks. I'm sure there are some that dislike what he did, but I'm also confident that there are others here (of varying political persuasions) that find what he did to be noble. He's looking at a long time in prison if convicted, and outside legal consul is a necessity for putting forth a thorough defense. Even if you can only give a small amount it will still help.

The latest: (And even if you think he's guilty, do you think he should be treated as such? Should a "civilized" society engage in such acts? I mean, again, even if ya think he's guilty and should spend the rest of his life in a cage, well, should he be repeatedly degraded, consistently humiliated? I mean, just have the trial. Find him guilty. And throw away the key.)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbzBx88If0g

[onmyknees]

[QUOTE=Ben;892498]The latest: (And even if you think he's guilty, do you think he should be treated as such? Should a "civilized" society engage in such acts? I mean, again, even if ya think he's guilty and should spend the rest of his life in a cage, well, should he be repeatedly degraded, consistently humiliated? I mean, just have the trial. Find him guilty. And throw away the key.)






Hey Ben...you and Burbs want to put your $$$$ to good use? Donate to The Wounded Warriors Fund. This guys neither !!