I don't know about this particular case, but as somebody who served in the military, I always find it odd when folks talk about military member's civil rights.
Do they realize that the military can and will take lives? That simple things like your smoking habits can get people killed? That you give up all sorts of things when you put the uniform on?
Don't get me wrong -- I didn't like any of that. And I was in the infantry, which is much more about military discipline and foundational stuff. I think a lot of folks look at the military and think of guys living in dorms and doing jobs that involve pushing a lot of buttons. In that case, those folks begin to look a lot like anybody else going to work. So we expect them to have a similar work and legal environment as the rest of us.
Like I said, I'm not trying to pass judgment on Manning in this comment or try to figure out what the appropriate type of incarceration would be for him. I just find people's attitudes towards the military very -- weird.
Full stop. This isn't about whether the punishment for losing your rifle is excessive, this is a black and white issue. Punishment before trial == wrong. Torture == wrong. Both are against the constitution.
Yeah, and I'm really don't like the special treatment for "enemy combatants" as well. Does the right to life, liberty and happiness apply to all mankind or just to people the US government is not currently scared of?
Are you asking if the American Constitution and the American Bill of Rights only applies to Americans?
Enemy combatants belong to non-state actors, and so no treaties or guidelines apply to them. Last I checked Al doesn't Al Qaeda and the rest of the cavers don't get representatives in the UN.
Actually, the US Constitution is much broader in terms of protecting individuals then I think you realize. The Constitution is specific when it intends to reserve rights only for citizens, otherwise it uses the word Persons.
Namely that these enemy combatants do have rights under the Constitution in this case the right to a habeas petition.
The other relevant historic case-law here is _Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)_
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yick_Wo_v._Hopkins
"these provisions [the Constitution] are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction."
The guards at the confinement facility are professional. At no time have they tried to bully, harass, or embarrass PFC Manning. Given the nature of their job, however, they do not engage in conversation with PFC Manning.
</snip>
He gets to watch TV, write letters, and have visitors on the weekends. He is isolated, but his treatment and living conditions are a far cry from torture.
According to Mssrs Rumsfeld and Cheney people that where waterboarded for up to 200 times where not tortured. According to the definition of torture in the civilized world this sure as hell was and is torture.
It's not a stretch to argue that solitary confinement equates torture.
His conditions are withering him physically and psychologically. He's not allowed to exercise whatsoever, or to communicate with anyone except on weekends. These conditions may not be direct torture, but they are most definitely a form of indirect torture, a claim which is supported by several psychologists. It's a form of punishment before trial, which is absolutely unconstitutional.
First, it's debatable whether you can sell, sign away, or give away your own human rights.
Second, lots of people (especially less educated kids), often don't realize what they're signing up for when then enroll in the military. They're often lied to by recruiters, and are brainwashed by their families and the culture around them, who worship the military.
Third, even if Manning had knowingly and willingly agreed to be tortured by the US government, that does not excuse the torture.
FWIW, it's only debatable in the sense that someone could have a debate about it. The courts have repeatedly ruled that you can't sign away your rights. It even comes up in employment law, just because you sign something doesn't mean it's enforceable.
I'm with you on this, clearly not many people here have actually served in the military to know first hand what 'rights' you do or don't give up when you serve. If anyone would just look at the situation as it stands right now, you would see that you DO give up certain rights when you are in the military...it's the price you pay when you choose to serve. And let's get this straight - it is a choice. Last time I checked, there was no draft being enforced...
This discussion is sad because in the end, if this kid is found guilty of leaking those docs, found guilty of treason? Smh...whether it's right or wrong, his 'pre-trial torture' will be the least of his worries. And if he is found innocent? It's pretty doubtful anyone gets sued over his wrongful imprisonment, idk, I could be wrong...
There's a difference between the US military claiming that you "give up" (or sign away) your rights when you enroll, and whether you actually do or even can give them up at all when you enroll.
Depending on whether you think rights are inherent and inalienable, there could also be a difference between which rights some courts rule you have and which rights you actually have.
The courts might rule and the military might claim you have no rights whatsoever, and they can torture you to death, or imprison you forever, without cause, whenever they feel like it.
Does that mean you have no right not to be tortured? Does it mean you have no right not to be imprisoned without being found guilty of a crime? Or does it mean such imprisonment and torture (even when legal, or when the US military claims its legal) is a violation of your rights?
Do they realize that the military can and will take lives? That simple things like your smoking habits can get people killed? That you give up all sorts of things when you put the uniform on?
Don't get me wrong -- I didn't like any of that. And I was in the infantry, which is much more about military discipline and foundational stuff. I think a lot of folks look at the military and think of guys living in dorms and doing jobs that involve pushing a lot of buttons. In that case, those folks begin to look a lot like anybody else going to work. So we expect them to have a similar work and legal environment as the rest of us.
Like I said, I'm not trying to pass judgment on Manning in this comment or try to figure out what the appropriate type of incarceration would be for him. I just find people's attitudes towards the military very -- weird.