Chelsea Manning -punishment or persecution?

[Stavros]

Come now, surely you aren't suggesting only the good ole USA has inculcated torture 'into the military through the rule book'? This is just the human state of being: when in a position of power - particularly over someone that the majority has condemned - then do your best to do the worst. In fact the savagery just increases the more the person protests about trivial things like their human rights. Clearly you have never experienced either the police, CPS, or judiciary in the first person. I have. The only thing that separates that triumvirate from your run-of-the-mill thug is they are sanctioned by 'we the people' and therefore far less likely to ever wind up behind bars.

I disagree with this for the simple reason that Manning has the constitutional right under the 8th Amendment not to receive 'cruel and unusual punishment', as is also true of all of her fellow Americans. To dismiss this because 'in reality' prison is what it is and is a form of hell, gives a free pass to anyone in the prison system and outside it who chooses to disregard both the law and constitution of the USA, and a prisoner's human rights.

Manning was placed in solitary confinement after attempting suicide, but this resulted in what appears to be an additional form of punishment, as I remarked upon in my original post, making one wonder if indeed Manning was being punished for her crimes, or being persecuted in violation of the constitution. I suggest sceptics in their bathroom or toilet replicate one of the conditions of her incarceration to see how long they last-

“For 17 hours a day, I sat directly in front of at least two Marine Corps guards seated behind a one-way mirror. I was not allowed to lay down. I was not allowed to lean my back against the cell wall. I was not allowed to exercise. Sometimes, to keep from going crazy, I would stand up, walk around, or dance, as ‘dancing’ was not considered exercise by the Marine Corps"
http://dailycampus.com/stories/2016/...helsea-manning

The cardinal point, as Hippifried points out above, is that Manning has not been pardoned, but her sentence has been commuted. My own view is that this has been a humane act by President Obama, and that it underlines the extent -however limited some may consider it to have been- to which the Obama Presidency has been good for the LGBTQIAPN/B communities -not just in the USA but across the world, at a time when these communities are under vicious attack. It is a salutary moment given that in the last month at least one M2F prisoner in a male prison in the UK has committed suicide, not an unusual case, and in the US individual States have been making aggressive attempts to revoke transgender rights in particular, a trend that some fear may get worse with the Trump administration.

So while I appreciate the second part of your post, I think the approach to crime and punishment is already provided for in the Constitution and any dismissive talk about 'this is real life in the military' or some other excuse just doesn't work, except to cast doubt on the whole purpose of the law and the Constitution itself.

[ElectricWoody]

Puzzles me how "HE" went thru Boot Camp and did all this. I think Bigotry clouded "HIS" morals.

[Post Op Preferred]

A comment so crass one wonders why you made the effort to post it.

crass, yes, and that was my intent. this is the porn forum, not a graduate seminar in ethics.
But trolling, no. Your comment and Laphroig's below comes closer to that.
However, Manning to her credit leaked materials which embarrassed the military but did not compromise military capabilities. According to Robert Gates' (the then Secretary of Defense) concerns about the Manning leaks were "significantly overwrought." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/ar...ngs-wikileaks/.
Manning violated her oath, but so did Claus von Stauffenberg (Hitler's would be assassin) and Daniel Ellsberg (Pentagon Papers.)
Manning believed she had a moral duty to expose military incompetence and abuses, both of which were on plentiful display in both Iraq, much like Ellsberg did for Vietnam. Both affected US policies positively by shifting public opinion against ill-fated and costly (in money and lost or ruined lives) interventions. She has paid a significant price and earned her freedom through a legitimate exercise of Obama's discretion.
so what's so wrong about Grooby offering her a shoot? It might juice the sales of her upcoming memoir.

[bryanferryfan2]

I've gotten to the point where I'm not a big fan of Chelsea Manning because she put a lot of lives at stake. Should've served a life sentence as far as I'm concerned !

[ILuvGurls]

I've gotten to the point where I'm not a big fan of Chelsea Manning because she put a lot of lives at stake. Should've served a life sentence as far as I'm concerned !

don't think 7 yrs is enough time for what she did.......JMHO

[runningdownthatdream]

I disagree with this for the simple reason that Manning has the constitutional right under the 8th Amendment not to receive 'cruel and unusual punishment', as is also true of all of her fellow Americans. To dismiss this because 'in reality' prison is what it is and is a form of hell, gives a free pass to anyone in the prison system and outside it who chooses to disregard both the law and constitution of the USA, and a prisoner's human rights.

Manning was placed in solitary confinement after attempting suicide, but this resulted in what appears to be an additional form of punishment, as I remarked upon in my original post, making one wonder if indeed Manning was being punished for her crimes, or being persecuted in violation of the constitution. I suggest sceptics in their bathroom or toilet replicate one of the conditions of her incarceration to see how long they last-

“For 17 hours a day, I sat directly in front of at least two Marine Corps guards seated behind a one-way mirror. I was not allowed to lay down. I was not allowed to lean my back against the cell wall. I was not allowed to exercise. Sometimes, to keep from going crazy, I would stand up, walk around, or dance, as ‘dancing’ was not considered exercise by the Marine Corps"
http://dailycampus.com/stories/2016/...helsea-manning

The cardinal point, as Hippifried points out above, is that Manning has not been pardoned, but her sentence has been commuted. My own view is that this has been a humane act by President Obama, and that it underlines the extent -however limited some may consider it to have been- to which the Obama Presidency has been good for the LGBTQIAPN/B communities -not just in the USA but across the world, at a time when these communities are under vicious attack. It is a salutary moment given that in the last month at least one M2F prisoner in a male prison in the UK has committed suicide, not an unusual case, and in the US individual States have been making aggressive attempts to revoke transgender rights in particular, a trend that some fear may get worse with the Trump administration.

So while I appreciate the second part of your post, I think the approach to crime and punishment is already provided for in the Constitution and any dismissive talk about 'this is real life in the military' or some other excuse just doesn't work, except to cast doubt on the whole purpose of the law and the Constitution itself.

I don't disagree with you Stavros. The best of human nature attempts to codify morality in laws and constitutions. They exist in all nations even those where the government itself is responsible for the most heinous atrocities. My point is that you cannot generalize and institutionalize morality. Ultimately individuals are responsible for how they behave and the truth of the matter is that humans will use the pretext of the law or constitution to justify what they WANT to do. Look at some of the comments here - it's obvious the law or constitution making torture illegal isn't equally clear to all. If you were her jailer YOU might have objected to what was being done to her but SanDiegoPervySage (being a good military man) might likely have felt she wasn't being treated harshly enough!

The individual maggots that partook in the torture you describe above had a moral imperative to do something about how Chelsea was being treated. They didn't. Why? Did they feel their actions were sanctioned by the government and if so did that make those actions , however morally repugnant they might have been, acceptable? Chelsea Manning had the same dilemma: she was a part of things that she felt repugnant and that drove her to expose them. How many of us would behave differently if we were in the same position as her jailers?

I'm not condoning what was done nor do I accept it as the 'reality' of prison. But I do accept the reality of human nature. That is that morality is on a sliding scale dependent on what role you're playing when, where, and why.

[fred41]

Chelsea Manning had the same dilemma: she was a part of things that she felt repugnant and that drove her to expose them.

You can't know this to be true at all.