Open main menu

Comments:US military brig officials order whistle-blowing suspect to sleep naked

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.

Start a new discussion

Contents

Thread titleRepliesLast modified
This is absurd2212:57, 14 March 2011

This is absurd

That's fucking ridiculous to think that he could, or even would want, to hurt himself with his underwear. God, people are so fucking stupid.

Ashershow1talk00:12, 8 March 2011

This man must be freed immediately and Those responsible for his unlawful detainment brought to justice at the ICC.

67.142.172.25 (talk)01:46, 8 March 2011

Fuck the traitor.

75.74.54.31 (talk)01:58, 8 March 2011

Agreed.

Crazynomad (talk)17:47, 8 March 2011
 

The only traitors in this situation are those who would subvert the democratic process by keeping the public misinformed and imprisoning a whistle-blower who respected his duty to protect and defend the constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Those traitors should be tried.

67.142.172.25 (talk)22:33, 9 March 2011
 

as far as I'm concerned Bradley Manning is a hero. only the bravest of men would sacrifice their career, freedom, and personal safety to stand up for what they believe in. the army are not doing themselves any favours by treating him this way. i believe more and more people will be enraged by this story (like i was).

174.4.134.64 (talk)08:02, 11 March 2011
 

Why would an American man who is under American jurisdiction go to a international court that the American government withdrew from? If anything, Manning could sue the United States Army in the Supreme Court.

Mikemoral♪♫02:00, 8 March 2011

Why? Because the United States Army has flagrantly violated International law in their detainment and cruel inhumane treatment of Bradley Manning, as well in committing the war crime depicted in the "Collateral Murder" video that he is alleged to have leaked. May I remind you that Libya is not even a signatory to the ICC Membership Treaty (The US is an ICC signatory but has not ratified the Treaty). However this will not stop the international community from trying Moammar al-Gadaffi for war crimes, once he is apprehended, nor shall it stop the international community from bringing United States war criminals to justice. Bradley Manning is a courageous patriot who put the interests of his country before himself. He should be honored.

67.142.172.20 (talk)02:30, 8 March 2011

His crime was to put the interests of the American people before the interests of the American government, or more correctly, the gutless American political establishment on both sides. That those two interests are now so contradictory is a disgrace; isn't the government meant to serve the people?

218.215.52.252 (talk)13:23, 8 March 2011
 

No, not really, when you consider he is being held in better conditions than your average everyday prisoners outside of the United States who are not whining about hurting themselves. Guess the ICC actually has real problems in the world to worry about. Besides, they still need to prove they comprehend reality in those nations where people live in fear being imprisoned merely for their opinions, or suspected opinions, in far worse conditions. It is called reality; you probably are not too familiar with it.

143.79.13.6 (talk)03:53, 12 March 2011
 
 
 

Can we stop defending someone who committed a crime? by committing a crime you give up your rights to make up for the rights you violated. I know hes not convicted but the military does not act like such if they lack information. So please stop disrespecting the people who make the hard choices because god knows you can't.

Crazynomad (talk)17:45, 8 March 2011

Perhaps you're forgetting that the universal standard of due process is "innocent until proven guilty". Bradley Manning is Accused of a noble and courageous act: putting his career and his freedom on the line so that Americans can see and hear the sordid truth of US Foreign Policy, which the ever more consolidated corporate mainstream media has failed miserably to deliver to them. Tyrants who would subvert the democratic process by covering up their crimes and misdeeds while misinforming the public are not worthy of mine or anyone else's respect.

67.142.172.22 (talk)10:13, 9 March 2011

I guess standards are always correct, i mean look through history, standards are the greatest. Innocent until proven guilty is a system for the public anyway not where you take a oath and become property of the government. As far as the noble and courageous act goes your a fool to think this information will do anything but give our enemy's information. the public is too stupid to care about the truth to actually change the government, they care to much about Jersey shore. if select few know the truth, which is we all know the government is retarded, it won't change anything. His efferts are a complete waste of time and causes a waste of breath.

Crazynomad (talk)16:23, 9 March 2011

You are deeply confused if you believe that members of the US military "take a oath and become property of the government". "Our enemies" already know that the United States kills civilians and attacks journalists. They already know that there are ulterior motives for US military adventures - They don't need to be convinced of these things, they witness them on a daily basis. The fact is, Islamic terrorism would evaporate if the United States had a foreign policy that respected the economic sovereignty of Petroleum-rich nations, balanced Palestinian rights with those of Israelis, and strove for equitable relations and dialogue rather than imperial hegemony and confrontation. The lack of transparency, collusion with multinational corporations and clandestine dealings which shape the United States's Foreign Policy are the greatest threat to democracy our Republic has faced in its 235 year history.

67.142.172.25 (talk)22:28, 9 March 2011

As for the public caring too much about Jersey Shore, the ignorance and complacency of the American public provide a strong argument for more government transparency, not less. Arguing to the contrary is like a doctor telling a patient with Stage III (or stage N) Lung cancer who is chain-smoker: "You're too busy with those cigarettes to be bothered by quitting smoking or starting chemo.

67.142.172.25 (talk)22:49, 9 March 2011
 

Many people have seemed to forget that along w/ the gunsight stuff there's also reports about the safety of our infrastructure and a list of the top-100-so most vulnerable targets.

Oh, and it lists informants & Al Qaeda has publicly said they're going over all the leaks w/ a fine tooth comb. & Assange has said he would release a "life insurance" leak if he was extradited. -You familiar w/ the term: "Extortion?"

169.139.251.249 (talk)12:57, 14 March 2011
 
 

One, he is innocent until proven guilty, but here is a clue for you, it is not universal. In most Countries he would just get a bullet in the back of the head. Even in Europe, Manning could be held indefinately without being charged. But the truth never holds the interest of simple minded people. The conditions Manning is being held in are pretty much the result of his crybaby pandering and whining. "I am going to hurt myself, that will show you!" Guess he got a lesson in reality.

143.79.13.6 (talk)03:49, 12 March 2011
 

Crazynomad I hope your joking and Im falling in to your trap by biting but "the military does not act like such if they lack information" ....can you not think of ANY examples of poor or fabricated intelligence based on which the US and UK have committed to military envolvement in recent history?!?!?! Think hard - I'll give you a clue; it wasnt Iran, N. Korea, Zimbabwe or currently Libya

Mcchino64 (talk)20:57, 11 March 2011
 

I agree he should be freed immediately.

Hayano'da'ah (talk)17:08, 11 March 2011
 

Are they going to pull out his teeth next because he could chew through an artery and commit suicide that way? How can this outrageous crime continue the way it does?

Bonez0r (talk)17:09, 11 March 2011
 

Perhaps he should point out that banging his head against the cell wall could cause injury, so the only way to keep him safe would be to remove all walls from his cell.

129.161.197.80 (talk)18:19, 11 March 2011

They'd be more likely to cut off his head. A quick (or, indeed, a slow) beheading has a 100% success rate at preventing the newly-decapitated from going on to kill themselves.

Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs)18:40, 11 March 2011
 

He is a trained soldier and surely knows how to kill (including himself) in several ways we cannot imagine. I’m not American, but I do think he has done the wrong thing giving away secrets he was supposed to keep. I do not think people who are defending him would keep as a friend a person that told everybody (literally everybody) something that was told as a secret for an intimate (supposed) friend. As of the treatment he is submitted, of course, I’m against torture, inhuman treatment etc, but if the guy make such a joke as described by his lawyer, he is not that nervous, is it?

201.47.224.11 (talk)12:07, 14 March 2011