Why do people keep bringing up the treatment of Manning in a military prison re: Snowden?

[Recursion]

Snowden is not in the military and is not subject to military confinement. He cannot be charged under the UCMJ. The military confinement conditions Manning was kept in until a couple of years ago were awful (though he's been in general population for a long time now), but they have absolutely no bearing on Snowden.

[Cali_Democrat]

1. I agree, Manning's treatment was awful and IMO constituted torture

But Snowden will not be in a military prison. I guess some will say Snowden will be tortured anyways if he's in custody even though he won't be in military confinement.

[idwiyo]

25. I guess you will consider examples below as perfectly alright? See below:

http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/press-releases/new-amnesty-international-report-exposes-severe-inhumane-solitary-confinement-conditions-for-3000-ca

September 27, 2012
New Amnesty International Report Exposes Severe, Inhumane Solitary Confinement Conditions for 3,000 California Prisoners

Human Rights Group Urges California to Amend Brutal Conditions

Contact: Suzanne Trimel, [e-mail], 212-633-4150, @strimel

(New York) – Three thousand prisoners in two California prisons are being held in solitary confinement under “cruel, degrading and inhuman” conditions that violate international standards, Amnesty International said today based on exclusive access to Pelican Bay and Corcoran state prisons. In a new report, the human rights organization said California is holding prisoners in extreme isolation – with no fresh air, natural light, direct human contact or programs – for years and even decades, and leaving them with little hope of ever emerging from the confinement.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/report/usa-urged-end-inmates%E2%80%99-40-year-long-solitary-confinement-2011-06-06

USA urged to end inmates’ 40 year-long solitary confinement
© Amnesty International

6 June 2011

The US state of Louisiana must immediately remove two inmates from the solitary confinement they were placed in almost 40 years ago, Amnesty International said today.
The men are confined to their cells, which measure 2 x 3 metres, for 23 hours a day. When the weather permits, they are allowed outside three times a week for an hour of solitary recreation in a small outdoor cage.

For four hours a week, they are allowed to leave their cells to shower or walk, alone, along the cell unit corridor.

They have restricted access to books, newspapers and television. For the past four decades they have never been allowed to work or to have access to education. Social interaction has been restricted to occasional visits from friends and family and limited telephone calls.

[reusrename]

123. Don't forget that Sibel Edmonds is still gagged.

The main thing would be to stop him from speaking, to silence him. I wouldn't put a chemical lobotomy past 'em.

[Katashi_itto]

178. +1000

[MannyGoldstein]

2. Manning was treated cruelly and inhumanely to set an example

The White House was complicit. He, and other whistleblowers, have been charged with the severest possible crimes.

Now the example's been set. No reason to believe that Snowden will be treated differently - a different code of law than Manning, but he can still spend years in solitary confinement, and so forth.

[hack89]

4. You think the president was personally involved?

really?

[MannyGoldstein]

7. At the least, he could have stopped it

but chose not to.

[Cali_Democrat]

8. I wonder if Manny has links to some documentation which backs up his accusation.

It's a pretty explosive accusation.

[MannyGoldstein]

13. Link to the military reporting to the President?

That counts as explosive in your book?

Would explain some things, I suppose.

[Cali_Democrat]

20. No

specific White House involvement in the treatment of Manning.

The military is a big organization and a lot of shit goes on, but you said the White House was complicit in Manning's treatment, but you provided no evidence to back up your accusation.

[MannyGoldstein]

22. The President couldn't call to say "cut the shit"?

Okey dokey.

[Cali_Democrat]

26. Where's your evidence of complicity?

[MannyGoldstein]

38. Perhaps you should look up the word "complicit" nm

[Recursion]

6. Umm. except for the obvious fact that SNOWDEN IS NOT IN THE MILITARY

Manning was held under suicide watch like any other military prisoner on suicide watch. It sucks, and they should fix that, but I still fail to see how his situation is even remotely relevant to Snowden, who can't be sent to a military prison.

[MannyGoldstein]

11. Can Snowden be put into solitary confinement?

For the rest of his life, even?

Could he be denied due process?

[Recursion]

15. The conditions of his confinement are subject to Federal prison regulations

We do keep too many people in solitary for too long, but that's a larger problem with our prison system in general.

He cannot be denied due process (nor, for that matter, was Manning; it was the defense that kept delaying the trial).

[MannyGoldstein]

19. So the answer is "yes, he can be put in solitary confinement for the rest of his life"

Under the NDAA, the White House claims that it is not bound by due process.

[G_j]

31. yes

in a nutshell

[Recursion]

43. If he were convicted and sentenced to life in prison, and the prison regulations allowed that

then I suppose yes. That's also true for people who buy pot.

[markpkessinger]

40. Yes, despite the fact that the MILITARY'S OWN PSYCHIATRIST said he wasn't a suicide risk! n/t

[struggle4progress]

49. Actually, there were several psychiatrists involved, including one who not long before

had taken another prisoner off suicide watch, after which that prisoner committed suicide, so the Brig Commander's caution in following that particular doctor's advice might actually have been understandable

[MjolnirTime]

27. he'll get what he deserves.

[JaneyVee]

28. Bullshit. He was treated that way by military personnel because they viewed him

As a traitor. I am NOT condoning it, I am pointing out that the WH had no role in it. And btw, I know he was treated this way by military personnel who viewed him as a traitor from a source with knowledge of this. What Manning did is severely frowned upon by military people who view their fellow soldiers as brothers and sisters who may have been put in harms way by his actions.

[ret5hd]

77. Who, exactly, is the commander in chief, the top dog, the head honcho, of the military?

[HardTimes99]

183. So will there be any courts-martial for that gross violation of human rights

and due process, via extra-judicial punishment?

Last time I checked Obama was Commander in Chief of the military and the buck stops at his desk.

[uponit7771]

3. They need to excuse the assholes treason. Obama is guilty of following the law

[HardTimes99]

184. Oh, please, your sophistry is quite unbecoming. The U.N.'s

rapporteur on human rights, Juan Mendez, called Manning's pre-trial conditions 'torture.' Was Commander in Chief Obama "following the law" there, sport? Maybe the 'law of the jungle.'

[RobertEarl]

5. NDAA

Do you not have a clue or are you just trolling?

Bush set up indefinite detention and Obama waved it through when he had a chance to stop it.

Note to jury... did not call him a troll, just asked if was trolling for trouble. Thanks.

[Recursion]

9. The proposed 2014 NDAA is not law

Are you seriously claiming Snowden will go to a military prison?

[RobertEarl]

18. Snowden will never go to jail

Obama, if he is smart, will pardon Snowden and establish an American holiday in his name.

The US government can detain and hold anyone in jail as long as they want under existing law.

[dionysus]

41. " pardon Snowden and establish an American holiday in his name"

[arely staircase]

96. if obama is "smart"

[woo me with science]

33. NDAA/indefinite detention is in effect now.

What in the upcoming "2014" version are you referencing that is so critical to this argument?

[Recursion]

94. Well, the 2012 version only applies to persons identified as members of Al Qaeda

So, I'm not sure what else you could be talking about?

[woo me with science]

105. Shame on you for these dishonest posts.

First you post that "NDAA 2014" is not in effect, hoping that people will infer that *indefinite detention* is not in effect. Indefinite detention most certainly is available to the US government now.

Then you state that indefinite detention in the 2012 version applies only to "members of Al Qaeda," which is blatantly false and you know it. The actual text is disgustingly vague and includes anyone the US government considers to have committed a "belligerent act" against itself.

You have no reason to post dramatically that the 2014 version has not taken effect, except (1) to try to mislead people into thinking that NDAA would not be applicable in the Snowden case, or (2) to make them think that there is something in NDAA 2014 that is not in 2012 that would allow them to prosecute him under one and not the other.

Shame on you.

Indefinite detention 2012 (Section 1021) can be applied to anyone the government decides

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012#Indefinite_detention_without_trial:_Section_1021
"was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners", and anyone who commits a "belligerent act" against the U.S. or its coalition allies in aid of such enemy forces, under the law of war, "without trial, until the end of the hostilities authorized by the [AUMF]". The text authorizes trial by military tribunal, or "transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin", or transfer to "any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity."

[Recursion]

106. I pasted the law's text in this thread

It applies to persons captured under the AUMF. Snowden is not one of them.

[struggle4progress]

126. Statement by the President on H.R. 1540 (December 31, 2011)

... The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa'ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.

Against that record of success, some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counterterrorism professionals and interfering with the very operations that have kept us safe. My Administration has consistently opposed such measures. Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people. Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.

Section 1021 affirms the executive branch's authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not "limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force." Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any "existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States." My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.

Section 1022 seeks to require military custody for a narrow category of non-citizen detainees who are "captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force." This section is ill-conceived and will do nothing to improve the security of the United States. The executive branch already has the authority to detain in military custody those members of al-Qa'ida who are captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the AUMF, and as Commander in Chief I have directed the military to do so where appropriate. I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat. While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations.

I have concluded that section 1022 provides the minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect national security. Specifically, I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States. As my Administration has made clear, the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa'ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost. I will not tolerate that result, and under no circumstances will my Administration accept or adhere to a rigid across-the-board requirement for military detention. I will therefore interpret and implement section 1022 in the manner that best preserves the same flexible approach that has served us so well for the past 3 years and that protects the ability of law enforcement professionals to obtain the evidence and cooperation they need to protect the Nation ...

[struggle4progress]

50. Why don't you find in the NDAA the exact section that you think could be used

to justify an indefinite detention without trial of Mr Snowden -- because as I read the text I find, it seems to apply to persons involved in the 9/11 attacks, and to my knowledge no one has accused Mr Snowden of having a hand in that

[RobertEarl]

55. You asking me to educate you? Struggler

Bring up the text yourself and I'll show you. Your side-ass slants are not going anywhere with me.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, so you have no excuse.

[Recursion]

56. I'd like to see that section too

Is that not a fair question? I provided the portion of the RCM that allowed for Manning's pretrial confinement; is a link on your part too much to ask?

(The actual section, please, not some blog screaming about the NDAA.)

[RobertEarl]

59. You are ignorant about the law?

Oh well. But that does explain a lot about your posts here.

[Recursion]

60. No, I'm not; I'm calling "bullshit" on you

And I'd like to see you back up your assertion

[RobertEarl]

63. Yes, you are.

Go back 18 months on DU and see the discussion. First Obama said he would veto. But since they wiretapped him they had him over a barrel, so he signed it. Then he said HIS administration wouldn't detain. Well, if he ever catches Snowden (he won't) we'll see.

And you calling bullshit on me is fucking funny. You are the ignorant one. Is it willful or just plain?

[Recursion]

66. So, you can't find the section?

I figured.

[RobertEarl]

69. Section 1022, I think

What, you can't look for yourself?

You want me to hold your hand and walk you through it? Bwahahaha!

[Recursion]

70. Section 1022 of?

Last edited Mon Jul 8, 2013, 11:07 PM - Edit history (1)

You still haven't said what title you're talking about.

[struggle4progress]

86. The bill was hundreds of pages long. I suspect the poster never bothered to read

the text alleged to be so offensive

[RobertEarl]

91. You suspect?

Hah. Had you read it you wouldn't be begging on me. You really think I'm making this up? Do you know how many people try to take a bite out of me and have gone away hungry?

I read the thing. Hell DU hashed it out in Dec 2012. Where were you?

You have search, right? Search it.

[Recursion]

89. Here's section 1022 of the 2012 NDAA

Tell me what part you think applies to Snowden

SEC. 1022. MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN AL-QAEDA TERRORISTS.
(a) CUSTODY PENDING DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (4), the
Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described
in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities
authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force
(Public Law 107–40) in military custody pending disposition
under the law of war.
(2) COVERED PERSONS.—The requirement in paragraph (1)
shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under
section 1021 who is determined—
(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an
associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant
to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
(B) to have participated in the course of planning or
carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the
United States or its coalition partners.
(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—For purposes of this
subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war
has the meaning given in section 1021(c), except that no
transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section
shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of sec-
tion 1028.
(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.—The President may
waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the President submits
to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is
in the national security interests of the United States.
(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL
RESIDENT ALIENS.—
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain
a person in military custody under this section does not extend
to citizens of the United States.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement to detain
a person in military custody under this section does not extend
to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis
of conduct taking place within the United States, except to
the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.
(c) IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 60 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and
submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.
(2) ELEMENTS.—The procedures for implementing this sec-
tion shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:
(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to
make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the
process by which such determinations are to be made.
(B) Procedures providing that the requirement for mili-
tary custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the
interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gath-
ering with regard to persons not already in the custody
or control of the United States.
(C) Procedures providing that a determination under
subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until
after the conclusion of an interrogation which is ongoing
at the time the determination is made and does not require
the interruption of any such ongoing interrogation.
(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for mili-
tary custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when
intelligence, law enforcement, or other Government officials
of the United States are granted access to an individual
who remains in the custody of a third country.
(E) Procedures providing that a certification of national
security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted
for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a
third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the
United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.
(d) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed
to affect the existing criminal enforcement and national security
authorities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other
domestic law enforcement agency with regard to a covered person,
regardless whether such covered person is held in military custody.
(e) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall take effect on the
date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act,
and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection
(a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control
of the United States on or after that effective date.

[woo me with science]

113. Stop spreading disinformation. Section 1021 outlines indefinite detention, not 1022.

And here is the text:

includes the power to detain, via the Armed Forces, any person (including a U.S. citizen[13][21]) "who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners", and anyone who commits a "belligerent act" against the U.S. or its coalition allies in aid of such enemy forces, under the law of war, "without trial, until the end of the hostilities authorized by the [AUMF]". The text authorizes trial by military tribunal, or "transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin", or transfer to "any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity".[22]

Indefinite detention without trial can apply to anyone the government construes has committed a "belligerent act" against it in the service of the enemy.

[Recursion]

114. Robert Earl said 1022; take it up with him

Here's section 1021; it doesn't apply to Snowden either. Note section (b), "COVERED PERSONS"

Note particularly "Nothing in this section shall be construed
to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of
United States citizens,"

As well as the fact that the entire section doesn't actually have any legal effect (they say as much).

You're not trying very hard, are you?

SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF
THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS
PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILI-
TARY FORCE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the
President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to
the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40;
50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces
of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in sub-
section (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section
is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided
the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,
or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported
al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged
in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,
including any person who has committed a belligerent act or
has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy
forces.
(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a
person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may
include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until
the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for
Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States
Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009
(title XVIII of Public Law 111–84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent
tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country
of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit
or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the
Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed
to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of
United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States,
or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United
States.
(f) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.—The Secretary
of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application
of the authority described in this section, including the organiza-
tions, entities, and individuals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’
for purposes of subsection (b)(2).

[Recursion]

120. Why do you keep posting text that isn't in section 1021 or 1022?

Where did you get that quote? It certainly isn't from the law. I've pasted both 1021 and 1022 on this thread.

[woo me with science]

130. Stop trying to spread disinformation.

I am cutting and pasting from your post:

(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section
is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided
the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,
or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported
al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged
in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,
including any person who has committed a belligerent act or
has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy
forces.

Let's repeat that:

"Including any person who has committed a belligerent act...in aid of such enemy forces."

The language has changed slightly from the bill to the law, but the "covered persons" continue to include those who commit vague "belligerent acts" that the US deems to be supportive of enemy forces.


Again, the administration specifically demanded that language exempting American citizens be removed from the Act. That should tell you a hell of a lot.

[Recursion]

132. You know "belligerent act" has an actual legal meaning, right?

And that it doesn't apply to espionage or dissemination of classified information.

[woo me with science]

139. You have repeatedly thrown out disinformation in this thread,

Last edited Tue Jul 9, 2013, 06:21 AM - Edit history (1)

including multiple shameful attempts to present your opinions as settled law.

That two-sentence post you just made took the bullshit cake.

Anyone who has been following this case closely knows that it is precisely the vagueness of that term that has caused much of the outrage around Section 1021.

You are flailing now, and shamelessly throwing out nonsense, in the hope that something will stick.

I am leaving this thread now, because I consider your dishonest tactics throughout this discussion beneath contempt.

[Recursion]

153. You're the one claiming there's some law allowing the indefinite detention of US Citizens

and refusing to actually state which title and section you're talking about.

When I've called you on it, you've obfuscated. I've presented the law as it stands.

[Demit]

177. (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody

&quot 1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain
a person in military custody under this section does not extend
to citizens of the United States."

Note the loophole word: "requirement." The implication is that, while it's not required, it is not expressly forbidden. So a decision to detain a citizen could be made, by the President, as Commander-in-Chief, at his discretion.

[struggle4progress]

76. Don't be coy: Supporting your claim is your task, not mine.

[RobertEarl]

83. I do not support your ignorance, correct, but

.... it is not my job to educate you. I already know about the NDAA from 2012, section 1022, or 1021....

It's like this: can you show me the law that says you have to have a driver's license?

Now, if you pay me, I'll educate you. How much you got? Bwahahaha!

[Recursion]

88. It's easy to look up, and you're completely full of it

Section 1022 of the 2012 NDAA covers the confinement specifically of Al Qaeda operatives caught overseas.

Next?

[RobertEarl]

98. Can you back that up?

First you didn't know what I was talking about, so you said.

Now you make a claim that it was just AQ. Time for you to back yourself up. But we know you can't. Because you know it says anyone, anywhere.

We hashed it out on DU in 2012. I don't have search and I don't need to search, but you do, eh?

[Recursion]

100. I pasted the text upthread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3204912

It's specific about who it can apply to, and Snowden does not make that cut.

The person has to be captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the AUMF.

[RobertEarl]

104. President decides

(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.—The President may
waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the President submits
to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is
in the national security interests of the United States.

Snowden is wise to suspect he'd be detained under the law of war.

That is the point. Not what you or I think, but what Snowden thinks.

And guess what... if someone is detained, they don't even have to tell anyone! As long as we are at war, which Obama is trying to get away from, we are all at risk.

[woo me with science]

111. Stop spreading disinformation. No. 1021 is for indefinite detention,

and the text is as follows:

includes the power to detain, via the Armed Forces, any person (including a U.S. citizen[13][21])

"who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners", and anyone who commits a "belligerent act" against the U.S. or its coalition allies in aid of such enemy forces, under the law of war, "without trial, until the end of the hostilities authorized by the [AUMF]". The text authorizes trial by military tribunal, or "transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin", or transfer to "any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity".[22]

Stop lying. You also claimed that it was necessary to be a member of Al Qaeda. All it requires is that the government perceive you to have committed a "belligerent act" against it.

[Recursion]

112. That's exactly what I posted, only I didn't make stuff up about it like you did

Snowden was not and will not be captured under the aegis of the AUMF, and he is not accused of committing a belligerent act, nor of aiding Al Qaeda.

Stop lying.

[woo me with science]

115. No, you are posting 1022.

1021 is the section referring to indefinite detention, and it is very clear as to who can be detained, and the criteria are outrageously broad:

includes the power to detain, via the Armed Forces, any person (including a U.S. citizen[13][21]) "who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners", and anyone who commits a "belligerent act" against the U.S. or its coalition allies in aid of such enemy forces, under the law of war, "without trial, until the end of the hostilities authorized by the [AUMF]". The text authorizes trial by military tribunal, or "transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin", or transfer to "any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity".[22]

You have repeatedly posted lies and deliberate attempts to mislead.

For example, there was no reason for you to proclaim above that NDAA 2014 is not in place yet, unless you wanted to mislead people into thinking that indefinite detention is not in place (FALSE) or that Snowden would be safe until the 2014 version goes into effect (FALSE). You are unable to post anything that explains why NDAA 2014 is supposed to be so significant for Snowden. It was spin.

You also posted that indefinite detention applies only to members of Al Qaeda, which is a deliberate, outrageous falsehood.

And now you are posting 1022 over and over again, when 1021 is the section referring to indefinite detention. It states clearly,

includes the power to detain, via the Armed Forces, any person (including a U.S. citizen[13][21]) "who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners", and anyone who commits a "belligerent act" against the U.S. or its coalition allies in aid of such enemy forces, under the law of war, "without trial, until the end of the hostilities authorized by the [AUMF]". The text authorizes trial by military tribunal, or "transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin", or transfer to "any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity".[22]

Indefinite detention without trial can apply to anyone the government construes has committed a "belligerent act" against it in the service of the enemy.

You have shown yourself to be dishonest in this conversation. I am leaving here, as I don't want to kick a thread that is full of blatant, dishonest spin. But it was important to point out what you are up to here.

[Recursion]

117. And then I posted 1021 which is an even worse law for you

The text you keep pasting is not in section 1021. You are lying, and it's embarrassing.

I posted the entire text of section 1021. I'll do so again:

SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF
THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS
PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILI-
TARY FORCE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the
President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to
the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40;
50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces
of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in sub-
section (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section
is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided
the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,
or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported
al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged
in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,
including any person who has committed a belligerent act or
has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy
forces.
(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a
person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may
include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until
the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for
Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States
Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009
(title XVIII of Public Law 111–84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent
tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country
of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit
or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the
Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed
to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of
United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States,
or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United
States.
(f) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.—The Secretary
of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application
of the authority described in this section, including the organiza-
tions, entities, and individuals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’
for purposes of subsection (b)(2).

Keep your dignity and just admit you're wrong about this.

[Recursion]

116. Try again; 1021 is even worse for your argument than 1022

Section 1021 has no legal effect (it's an affirmation of the AUMF powers), it specifically exempts US citizens, and it only covers detentions of persons who aided Al Qaeda.

Seriously, you can do better.

[woo me with science]

121. No, it does not clearly exempt Americans.

Last edited Tue Jul 9, 2013, 06:23 AM - Edit history (1)

You know as well as anyone here that the whole controversy over NDAA is that many legal scholars have concluded that it does NOT exempt American citizens.

Here's the smoking gun: When an amendment was offered to CLARIFY that American citizens are exempt, the Obama Administration asked that the amendment be withdrawn, and the Senate rejected it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012#Indefinite_detention_without_trial:_Section_1021
An amendment to the Act that would have replaced current text with a requirement for executive clarification of detention authorities was rejected by the Senate.[23] According to Senator Levin, "the language which precluded the application of section 1031 to American Citizens was in the bill that we originally approved in the Armed Services Committee and the Administration asked us to remove the language which says that US Citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section".[24] The Senator refers to section 1021 as "1031" because it was section 1031 at the time of his speaking.

The Administration REJECTED an amendment that would have made explicit the exemption of US citizens from the possibility of indefinite detention.

Shame on you.

[Recursion]

124. I have pasted the text 3 times. IT SPECFICIALLY EXEMPTS US CITIZENS

I have pasted the text of Section 1021 three times and you refuse to acknowledge what it actually says. You keep posting summaries from other sites. Stop that. Here is the text of Section 1021. I have bolded the section where it exempts US citizens.

SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF
THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS
PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILI-
TARY FORCE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the
President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to
the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40;
50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces
of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in sub-
section (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section
is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided
the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,
or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported
al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged
in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,
including any person who has committed a belligerent act or
has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy
forces.
(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a
person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may
include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until
the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for
Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States
Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009
(title XVIII of Public Law 111–84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent
tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country
of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit
or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the
Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed
to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of
United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States,
or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United
States.
(f) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.—The Secretary
of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application
of the authority described in this section, including the organiza-
tions, entities, and individuals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’
for purposes of subsection (b)(2).

Your claim that this allows the indefinite detention of US citizens is a baldfaced lie, and not even a particularly plausible one.

[woo me with science]

127. Wrong, and you know it.

No, US citizens are not clearly exempted, and for you to suggest that they are willfully ignores all of recent reality.

"Nothing in this section shall be construed
to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of
United States citizens..."

That language does not say that US citizens are exempt. It states only that the Act cannot contradict US law "or authorities" relating to the detention of US citizens. As has been discussed widely in the media and in debates in the Senate, US law is not clear on this, and "authorities" is vague, which is the reason many legal scholars have concluded that NDAA *does* allow indefinite detention of Americans.

That is why an amendment was written to clarify that US citizens are exempt. What happened next was very telling.

The Obama administration demanded that the exempting language be removed.

And the Senate rejected the language exempting American citizens.

What a trainwreck of spin this thread is. I have to go take a shower now.

[Recursion]

128. So what law allows the indefinite detention of US citizens, then?

It's clearly not this section, which explicitly doesn't change the law regarding the detention of US citizens.

So, what law are you claiming allows the indefinite detention of US citizens. Title and section, please?

[davidn3600]

129. Apparently you forgot about Jose Padilla

[Recursion]

131. My understanding is the law was violated in Padilla's case

The Government nearly had to let him go because of that.

[woo me with science]

140. Did you actually just write that?

What law ALLOWS it?

I'm sorry; I am trying to use the smilie less frequently, but that particular imperious demand is absurd. You made the claim that it is illegal. If citing laws were the point here, the burden of proof falls to you to show where it is clearly illegal.

But that's not even the point. The point is that you are making an absurd and disingenuous claim: that the issue is settled, and Americans cannot be indefinitely detained.

Your claim is inconsistent with reality. The fact that it is NOT clear and settled is why we have had contentious debates in the Senate and among legal scholars to this day. It is also why an amendment was specifically drafted in order to CLARIFY that Americans are not subject to indefinite detention...And what happened with that amendment? The President rejected it. He demanded that language specifically exempting Americans from the possibility of indefinite detention be removed.

Yet you, an anonymous poster on an internet board, are solemnly and absurdly claiming that the matter is settled and that Americans are exempt.

It should chill every single American that the President specifically rejected the amendment to clarify that Americans are exempt from indefinite detention.

Had enough of the bullshit for real now. I think your MO is sufficiently clear. Goodnight.

[Recursion]

141. Yes. You're claiming there is some law that allows the indefinite detention of US citizens

I'd like to know which law that is.

[woo me with science]

170. It's like arguing in Wonderland.

Another post from you = another example of the level of outright misrepresentation that pervades this thread.

I never claimed that there was a law allowing it. In fact, I pointed out to you the absurdity of your demand that I cite such a law.

There is no law clearly forbidding it.

For the last time, your claim that the exemption of Americans from indefinite detention is settled law is patently absurd. The law is obviously not settled, which is why we have such contentious debates in the Senate and among legal scholars to this day. It's also why an amendment was drafted to make explicit that NDAA does not allow indefinite detention of Americans.

And what was the response to that amendment?

The President rejected it. He demanded that specific language prohibiting the indefinite detention of Americans be withdrawn, and then the Senate voted the language down.

That should chill every single American.

[Recursion]

171. So, we're agreed no law allows for the indefinite detention of US citizens? Great.

Glad we settled that.

[woo me with science]

173. No, the point is that Americans are not clearly exempted from indefinite detention,

and the President specifically REJECTED language that would have clearly exempted us.

Ergo, the danger for Americans, including Edward Snowden, is very, very real.

[Recursion]

174. So, Section 1021 turned up empty for you, and now you're just saying there's a generic "danger"?

Sections 1021 and 1022 of the 2012 NDAA authorize indefinite detention of specifically defined enemy combatants.

Section 1021, despite your absurd denial, says in very plain language it does not apply to US Citizens

Section 1022, which for some reason you ignore despite its being a stronger case for your argument, does not have that explicit limitation, and furthermore has a troubling waiver that the Executive can unilaterally invoke by notifying Congress. But the section clearly limits its application to persons who are aiding one specific group of terrorists.

So, seriously, where are you getting the idea that the government can hold a US citizen indefinitely? You're trying to argue based on language that never passed Congress, which is odd to say the least.

[woo me with science]

175. You're repeating yourself now,

Last edited Tue Jul 9, 2013, 06:40 AM - Edit history (1)

and ignoring my (repeated) very specific responses to this nonsense.

Goodnight.

[shenmue]

10. Hmmm

Well, they may be a little similar but in the end, they aren't the same.

[idwiyo]

12. Well, Snowden can always end in Gitmo. Not sure if I would consider THAT an improvement over

what Manning had to go through.

[Recursion]

16. No, he can't

Tell me you're kidding.

[idwiyo]

34. Yes. What he is most likely will end up in is a solitary confinement, not much better than Gitmo.

See my post 25.

Not sure how that is any better then what Manning had to go through. Before you bring military style suicide watch, google that for regular prisons.

[Scurrilous]

30. It's highly doubtful Snowden would be sent Gitmo.

It's for non-Americans only (yay them!).

One US citizen did end up there but was transferred out to US military prisons when the error was discovered:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasser_Hamdi

[idwiyo]

35. I know. It will be a solitary more likely and not better than what Manning had to go though.

See post 25.

[The Straight Story]

46. Yeah and spying/records were for foreigners too...

[Cleita]

14. How do you know he won't end up in a military prison?

Many of those guys who ended up in Gitmo weren't military either, whether our military or another nation's military. I believe the only reason Manning didn't end up there is that his case became too public and they couldn't get away with it.

[Recursion]

17. Because that would be illegal?

Seriously, you're asking that?

[Cleita]

21. Since when is doing things that are illegal an obstacle these days?

All they have to do is get their brown nosers in Congress to pass a law making it legal.

[magellan]

39. Where in the UCMJ is it legal

...to hold an uncharged man in solitary for months on end?

Legal? Fuck, the willful stupidity is incredible. If the military can get away with treating Bradley Manning as they did, where there's supposed to be discipline and chain of command, they can sure as fuck do that and more in the federal prison system. And DO.

[Recursion]

44. RCM 304 and 305

Pretrial confinement only requires probable cause, and is at the command's discretion

http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/MCM-2012.pdf?

The pertinent paragraphs:

(d) When a person may be confined. No person may
be ordered into pretrial confinement except for prob-
able cause. Probable cause to order pretrial confine­
ment exists when there is a reasonable belief that:
(1) An offense triable by court-martial has been
committed;
(2) The person confined committed it; and
(3) Confinement is required by the circumstances.

...

(2) Action by commander.
(A) Decision. Not later than 72 hours after the
commander’s ordering of a prisoner into pretrial
confinement or, after receipt of a report that a mem­
ber of the commander’s unit or organization has
been confined, whichever situation is applicable, the
commander shall decide whether pretrial confine-
ment will continue. A commander’s compliance
with this subsection may also satisfy the 48-hour
probable cause determination of subsection R.C.M.
305(i)(1) below, provided the commander is a neu­
tral and detached officer and acts within 48 hours of
the imposition of confinement under military con­
trol. Nothing in subsections R.C.M. 305(d), R.C.M.
305(i)(1), or this subsection prevents a neutral and
detached commander from completing the 48-hour
probable cause determination and the 72-hour com­
mander’s decision immediately after an accused is
ordered into pretrial confinement.
(B) Requirements for confinement. The com­
mander shall direct the prisoner’s release from pre-
trial confinement unless the commander believes
upon probable cause, that is, upon reasonable
grounds, that:
(i) An offense triable by a court-martial has
been committed;
(ii) The prisoner committed it; and
(iii) Confinement is necessary because it is
foreseeable that:
(a) The prisoner will not appear at trial,
pretrial hearing, or investigation, or
(b) The prisoner will engage in serious
criminal misconduct; and
(iv) Less severe forms of restraint are inade­-
quate.
Serious criminal misconduct includes intimidation
of witnesses or other obstruction of justice, serious
injury of others, or other offenses which pose a
serious threat to the safety of the community or to
the effectiveness, morale, discipline, readiness, or
safety of the command, or to the national security of
the United States. As used in this rule, “national
security” means the national defense and foreign
relations of the United States and specifically in­
cludes: a military or defense advantage over any
foreign nation or group of nations; a favorable for­-
eign relations position; or a defense posture capable
of successfully resisting hostile or destructive action
from within or without, overt or covert.

[magellan]

45. Solitary confinement?

At a stretch you could interpet it that way. And that's what the government is great at doing. Stretching the law.

They can put anybody anywhere they like and do what they want to them. The law means nothing.

[Recursion]

48. He was in solitary while he was on suicide watch. This is a problem with military prisons in general

He's also been out of solitary for years now.

[magellan]

51. He wasn't suicidal when they put him on "suicide watch"

No doubt he was after.

[struggle4progress]

101. There were multiple suggestions of suicidal intent:

Officer: Suicide led to wariness about Bradley Manning
2:29 p.m. EST November 28, 2012
... Oltman and others have testified that psychiatrists who examined Manning at Quantico repeatedly recommended that his conditions be eased. But Oltman, whose command included the brig, said he was skeptical about at least one of those recommendations because another detainee had killed himself in December, 2009, after his custody status was reduced based upon the advice of the same doctor, Navy Capt. William Hochter, the psychiatrist assigned to the brig ...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/11/28/bradley-manning-trial/1732263/

Bradley Manning testifies about detention in Wikileaks case: 'I totally started to fall apart'
By Courtney Kube, NBC News
29 Nov 2012 8:39pm, EST
... He said that on June 30, 2010, he had a mental break from reality. Manning said that he doesn't remember yelling uncontrollably, screaming, mumbling, or making a noose out of his bedsheets, describing everything from those hours as foggy and hazy. Manning acknowledged that he "certainly contemplated" suicide ... Manning said he was "elated" to be back on U.S. soil ... Manning answered a question about any suicidal tendencies by saying that he is "always plotting, but never acting" ... That statement would haunt him for the duration of his time at Quantico. Manning was placed on suicide risk when he arrived at Quantico ...
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/29/15551532-bradley-manning-testifies-about-detention-in-wikileaks-case-i-totally-started-to-fall-apart?lite

Bradley Manning says he considered suicide while in military custody
By Larry Shaughnessy, CNN Pentagon Producer
updated 7:10 AM EST, Fri November 30, 2012
... He contemplated suicide in Kuwait ... "The degree of concern of his safety and security was higher than anything I'd previously seen," Hocter said of Manning's time at Quantico ... To show he wasn't a danger, Manning said he told a non-commissioned officer in the brig at one point that he could have used the "waist band of my underwear or my flip flops" to hurt himself, but hadn't done so ...
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/29/justice/manning-wikileaks

Bradley Manning’s noose shown at hearing
By JOSH GERSTEIN | 11/30/12 1:36 PM EST Updated: 11/30/12 6:21 PM EST
FORT MEADE, Md. — Military prosecutors unveiled a dramatic exhibit Friday to illustrate why officers were legitimately concerned that accused WikiLeaks source Bradley Manning might commit suicide while he was in custody: a salmon-colored bedsheet that had been knotted into a noose. Army Maj. Ashden Fein pulled the noose from a paper bag shortly after beginning questioning Manning during a pretrial hearing on his claim that the strict conditions he was subjected to for nearly nine months at a Marine Corps brig in Quantico, Va. amounted to unconstitutional punishment ...
http://www.politico.com/story/2012/11/bradley-mannings-noose-shown-at-hearing-84455.html

Wikileaks informant Bradley Manning: a 'history of self-harm and suicidal thoughts'
By ASSOCIATED PRESS REPORTER
PUBLISHED: 21:47 EST, 2 December 2012 | UPDATED: 20:55 EST, 5 December 2012
... Jordan said under cross-examination by defense attorney David Coombs that besides the mental-health report, he considered evidence that Manning had contemplated suicide after his arrest in Iraq in May 2010. The evidence included a noose Manning had fashioned from a bedsheet while confined in Kuwait, and a written statement he made upon arrival at Quantico in July 2010 that he was 'always planning and never acting' on suicidal impulses ... Jordan said he considered the opinion of the brig psychiatrist, Navy Capt. William Hocter, that Manning was no longer at risk of self-harm. But Jordan said the weight he gave to Hocter's views was tempered by the fact that another detainee had recently killed himself after his custody status was reduced on Hocter's advice ...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2242098/Wikileaks-informant-Bradley-Manning-history-self-harm-suicidal-thoughts.html

[magellan]

107. Let me ask you something

If someone you love actually threatens to kill themselves, is your first response going to be to lock them in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day for 11 months? Is that how you want or expect professionals to treat them?

The UN Torture Chief was unimpressed with the military's justification of this appalling treatment of Manning as a "prevention of harm watch". I'll take his word for it.

[struggle4progress]

122. Did you actually ever read what Juan Mendez wrote? In the end,

Mr Mendez confined himself to written correspondence with US authorities and decided not to actually interview Mr Manning, on the grounds that his request for a private and unmonitored interview with Mr Manning had been refused; he subsequently repeated the request; in the end, he simply confined himself to a theoretical statement that prolonged solitary confinement qualifies as torture, and I expect most of us will agree with that

I believe Mr Mendez stood firmly on a sound human rights principle here, and I am disappointed his request for a private unmonitored interview was not honored

However, my concern about US failure to respect this sound human rights principle in Mr Manning's case is somewhat tempered by the facts that Mr Manning was not being held incognito at Gitmo; that he was allowed visitors there; that he has had competent counsel; and that the principle of lawyer-client confidentiality is well-established in US law

Had Mr Manning actually been tortured, we should have expected to hear it directly from him or his lawyer

But Mr Manning apparently never claimed, for example, when his father visited, that he was treated badly; according to a Frontline report,

MARTIN SMITH: How many times have you visited him?

BRIAN MANNING: Approximately eight or nine times.

MARTIN SMITH: During those visits, has he ever mentioned any complaint of any kind to you?

BRIAN MANNING: No. I always, you know, am conscientious enough to look him straight in the eyes and ask him a direct question. How are they treating you? Are you sleeping? Is the food OK? And he’s always responded that: Things are just fine.

(See: http://blog.reidreport.com/2011/03/curious-bradley-mannings-father-contradicts-house-coombs-says-doing-well/ )

His lawyer would have been able to claim torture in the pretrial hearings -- but to the best of my knowledge did not do so. He did successfully argue that Manning was held on suicide watch or in prevention-of-injury status longer than necessary, and that such treatment should be regarded as unlawfully punitive, considering Manning's status as accused but not yet tried or convicted: IIRC the judge considered these claims established for a total of seven days, and Manning was granted a 112 day reduction in any ultimate sentence

[Recursion]

125. I too am troubled that his request for a private unmonitored interview was denied

For that matter, there are several aspects of Manning's detention I disagree with. Some of his supporters aren't being much actual help, though, the way they talk about it.

[magellan]

182. Yes I did.

Mendez being unable to gain access is another reason I feel as I do.

I note you didn't answer my question -- do you think 9-11 months of solitary confinement (I've seen different reports) is appropriate treatment for a suicidal person?

At least you acknowledge a military judge ruled Manning's treatment was excessive and reduced his sentence because of it. We'll just have to disagree in our views of what torture is.

[struggle4progress]

186. hmmm

In brig, WikiLeaks suspect Bradley Manning ordered to sleep without clothing
By Ellen Nakashima,March 05, 2011
... Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said ... he had visited Quantico to observe the conditions of Manning’s detention ... “There’s this misperception out there that he is in somehow in solitary confinement, out on his own somewhere in a dark and dreary cell,” Morrell said. “That could not be further from the truth” ... <Manning’s attorney David Coombs> ... said .. Manning is technically not held in solitary confinement ...
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-03-05/world/35260997_1_david-e-coombs-brig-psychiatrist-military-detention-facility

US v. Pfc. Manning
Court Ruling on defense Article 13 motion
By Alexa O'Brien on January 9, 2013 11:59 AM
This ruling was read into the Court record at the Article 39(a) session of United Stated v. Pfc. Bradley Manning at Fort Meade, Maryland on January 8 and 9, 2013.
... CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ... The defense challenges the periods the accused remained on suicide risk over Captain Hocter's recommendation as unlawful pretrial punishment. The Government concedes that maintaining the accused on suicide risk after mental health provider determined he was no longer a suicide risk constitutes unlawful pretrial punishment under Article 13. The Court agrees ... The accused was not held in solitary confinement. Solitary means alone without human contact. Although the accused was confined by himself in a cell similar to that of other detainees at Marine Corps Brig Quantico, he had daily human contact. There was no additional door separating the accused cell from the main hallway. He can view all activity going on in the hallway. He had weekly visits with his counselor and mental health professionals as well as daily walk through visits by the Brig O ... There was no intent to punish the accused by anyone on the Marines Corps Brig staff or Marines Corps Quantico chain of command. Their intent was to ensure the accused was safe, did not hurt or kill himself, and was present for trial ... The Court finds the continued maintenance of the accused on POI status over mental health recommendation after 1 November 2010 was excessive in relation to the legitimate POI interest .. except for the period of 10 through 13 December 2011, when Captain Hocter recommended the accused remain on POI. The Court will award one day of sentence credit for 1 November to 17 January 2011-- minus those three days for a total of 75 days ... The Court will grant day for day sentence credit from 1 to 20 April 2011 for a total of twenty days ... The Court grants ten days of sentence credit ... The Court recognizes that RCM 305(k) can provide an independent basis for additional credit ... The accused has been granted with 112 days of sentence credit for Article 13 punishments ...
http://www.alexaobrien.com/secondsight/wikileaks/bradley_manning/appellate_exhib/us_v_pfc_manning_court_ruling_on_defense_article_13_motion.html

Why I called Bradley Manning's treatment 'stupid'
The US should uphold the highest standards towards its citizens, including the WikiLeaks accused. I stand by what I said
PJ Crowley
Tuesday 29 March 2011 11.00 EDT
... Earlier this month, I was asked by an MIT graduate student why the United States government was "torturing" Private First Class Bradley Manning, who is accused of being the source of the WikiLeaks cables that have been reported by the Guardian and other news outlets and posted online. The fact is the government is doing no such thing ...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/mar/29/bradley-manning-wikileaks

[Cali_Democrat]

23. You cannot be serious

The DOJ already filed a criminal complaint against Snowden in US district court.

How could he possibly end up in a military prison or gitmo?

[Cleita]

24. Because in today's political climate nothing seems to be impossible.

Besides the best enhanced interrogators seem to be attached to the military. They would figure out a way if they want to do it.

[southernyankeebelle]

29. I also think that Manning is getting a raw deal. It was he who brought the attention

to the pilot that killed innocent civilians.

[Recursion]

54. Sigh. He released a video that confirmed the military's finding that the attack was within the R.O.E

The helicopter attacked a group of armed civilians out after curfew. How many times does this zombie story have to come back?

[southernyankeebelle]

181. I don't know, how many? sigh

[ProSense]

32. Snowden

would likely have been charged and released on bail:

WASHINGTON — A federal grand jury in Washington has indicted a State Department analyst suspected of disclosing top-secret information about North Korea to Fox News, the third time the Obama administration has filed criminal charges accusing people of leaks to the news media.

The indictment, dated Aug. 19 and unsealed on Friday, named Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, 43, of McLean, Va., a specialist in nuclear proliferation who worked as a contractor for the State Department. Mr. Kim, who has worked as a high-level foreign affairs analyst for a decade for various federal agencies, is accused of disclosing the information in June 2009 and of lying to the F.B.I. in September 2009.

Mr. Kim, an American citizen, pleaded not guilty on Friday in Federal District Court before Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly and was released on $100,000 bond.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/28/world/americas/28leak.html

[idwiyo]

37. ...

[dkf]

57. Hee hee. Funny!!!

[idwiyo]

64. Can't help but laugh at "Snowden would likely have been charged and released on bail".

It's such an silly statement I am starting to wonder if ProSence was kidnapped by aliens and replaced with a completely clueless AI.
One that didn't have enough time yet to study Earth history of the last 30+ or so years.

[Recursion]

65. Why? It's how the law stands

What makes you think the law wouldn't apply to Snowden?

[dkf]

71. Hahahahaha!!!!!!

You are KILLING me!!!!!

[Recursion]

72. Seriously, what makes you think the law wouldn't apply to Snowden?

I'm honestly curious.

[dkf]

79. Because when you go to the effort of keeping secret decisions based on secret laws made by secret

Courts out of the public domain, you are not about to have a public trial.

Everything is hidden to protect state secrets and what is obviously blatantly unconstitutional behavior by any reasonable interpretation. Snowden said the NSA has no boundaries in surveilling American Citizens enmasse. I am sure we will see those documents or evidence soon enough.

International laws regarding the right of passage of heads of state, whistleblowers, asylum have been breached. Officials have lied under oath. Previous whistleblowers who have followed the letter of the law have been charged like their protections do not exist. I don't see any respect for the rule of law when it comes to the NSA.

[Recursion]

87. Well, that's a theory, but you're completely making stuff up

We've tried plenty of people for espionage in public.

[dkf]

95. There is no protective self interest involved in those cases.

Snowden's real "crime" is calling out the unlawful behavior of the Government. This is about preserving the secret power acquired by the NSA.

For full disclosure purposes it is actually better if something happens to Snowden and all is released...which is so perversely sick.

[idwiyo]

73. ...

I have a bridge over Thames for sale, would you like to buy one?

Your fucking government forced 4 other countries to break a Vienna convention over this and you are asking me why?
Are you THAT naive or do you think everyone is THAT stupid?

[Recursion]

74. Ummm... that's false

Your fucking government forced 4 other countries to break a Vienna convention over this and you are asking me why?

Since that didn't happen, I'm not sure how to respond.

[idwiyo]

80. Ummm... you are wrong but don't let it destroy your illusionary world.

Last edited Mon Jul 8, 2013, 11:20 PM - Edit history (1)

Meanwhile I am going to finish my cup of tea while reading something a little bit less silly and naive.

Have a good evening.

[Scootaloo]

176. Why are the same posters howling for Snowden-skin souveniers

...who laud retribution up to and including war against nations that offer asylum to him...
Who insist that this man is the etical equivalent of Hitler's left testicle...

Now suddenly trying to tell people they fully believe Snowden will be fairly and lawfully treated in every way and they hope he coems back to enjoy five-star prison-hotel conditions?

Just 'cause you hide the rope behind your back doesn't make you less of a lynch mob, after all

[idwiyo]

180. That's why I can't help but laugh at complete absurdity and hypocrisy of their posts.

[markpkessinger]

36. If one agency of the government (i.e., the military)

Can so egregiously violate its own code (the UCMJ) with regard to its pre-trial treatment of a suspect, what makes you think another agency, such as the DOJ, couldn't or wouldn't do the same or similar?

[winter is coming]

42. +1. n/t

[Recursion]

75. Which part of the UCMJ was violated with Manning?

The rules governing pretrial confinement give command very broad discretion.

[markpkessinger]

78. I'll have to look up the specific citation . . .

. . . but it is the section dealing with pre-trial treatment of detainees.

[Recursion]

84. That's covered in R.C.M. 304 and 305, if that helps (nt)

[markpkessinger]

90. Actually, I was referring to . . .

Section 813, Article 13:

813. ART. 13 PUNISHMENT PROHIBITED BEFORE TRIAL

No person, while being held for trial, may be subjected to punishment or penalty other than arrest or confinement upon the charges pending against him, nor shall the arrest or confinement imposed upon him be any more rigorous than the circumstances required to insure his presence, but he may be subjected to minor punishment during that period for infractions of discipline.

[Recursion]

92. Are you saying Manning was subject to punishment other than confinement?

That's news to me

[markpkessinger]

97. Being held in solitary confinement for months on end . . .

. . . Being forced to strip naked and stand in front of his cell in full view of other prisoners . . .

Those are NOT consistent with the requirements of Section 813, Article 13.

[Recursion]

99. Those are allowed by the rules of military prisons. Those rules should probaby be changed

But it's how military prisons are. They suck. And the UCMJ allows people suspected of crimes to be held in them before their trial.

[markpkessinger]

108. Manning received the treatment he received . . .

. . . because he was being made an example of. The government was trying to break him. Hiding behind legalisms doesn't alter that fact.

[Recursion]

109. No

You can keep saying that, and it doesn't become true by the repetition.

[markpkessinger]

110. Nor does denying it . . .

. . . You have your opinion, I have mine.

[Hydra]

118. They were drugging him too

Trying to break his mind. But I've noticed all of your posts dismiss anything that doesn't jive with what you want to believe, so I'm probably wasting my time here.

[Recursion]

119. What drugs did they give him?

I've read that he was on prescribed psychotropics.

[Hydra]

133. We don't know

But we can guess it's a well tested mix refined since the days of the clumsy MKUltra days of brainwashing.

David House visited Manning several times, and noted that as time wore on, Manning was getting less and less focused and more physically debilitated. A lot has been made of the solitary confinement and suicide watch for causing the damage(and not allowing him to exercise), but they were also drugging him, ostensibly to keep him from falling into depression.

Even if all they gave him were anti-depressants, you can't do that safely if you aren't addressing a brain chemical imbalance- I've been proscribed the wrong things before and they can unhinge you in unpredictable ways.

The gov't had and continue to have a motive- they want to find a way to declare Wikileaks a terrorist organization. They were happily destroying Manning to do it.

I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it myself- torturing a US citizen/soldier right in front of us...and nothing.

[Recursion]

134. Well hell, we don't know that they didn't download his brain into a giant computer

but they were also drugging him, ostensibly to keep him from falling into depression.

Yes, "ostensibly" to keep him from falling into the "depression" that several doctors noticed?

This is getting silly.

[Hydra]

136. Well, like I said, I'm probably wasting my time here

Because plenty of people called them out for what they were doing, including people in the Military. The person overseeing this noted that the people in charge of the facility were doing this despite the fact that it wasn't warranted, and in fact stated that they would be using the excessive treatment against Manning regardless of his behavior.

You asked why this was relevant? It's because Manning was abused. Snowden knows that he will be abused too if they catch him.

It's a pretty simple equation.

[Recursion]

142. *I've* called them out for what they were doing

I think the pretrial treatment of Manning was a horrible thing and a horrible idea, and that it also put the case against him in jeopardy.

[BlueCheese]

47. Civilian prisons can be terrible places too.

I remember reading that Wen Ho Lee was shackled in solitary confinement for most of the nine months he was being held.

[Bonobo]

52. What makes you think the US military would not claim him?

They have already said he abetted our enemies and violated our national security.

He is also ex-military.

Do you honestly believe it is much of a stretch to claim that he is an "enemy combatant" in the sense that he is working to undermine our security?

Of course many would complain. But it would do no good.

Once in a military prison, it would be over. No complaints would make an ounce of difference.

Who is being naive here?

[Recursion]

53. Wow

Do you honestly believe it is much of a stretch to claim that he is an "enemy combatant" in the sense that he is working to undermine our security?

Yes, I do.

[Bonobo]

143. Really? The SOS calling him a traitor means nothing?

http://rt.com/usa/kerry-russia-china-snowden-152/

[Recursion]

144. It doesn't make him an enemy combatant

That term has a legal definition. For starters, he hasn't engaged in any combat that I know of.

[Bonobo]

145. True. So let's make another term up.

How about "Enemy of the State representing an imminent threat to national security."

That ought to be enough to put him in military custody. Who would (be able to) effectively argue?

[Recursion]

147. That would be against the law

If we want to make a list of all the ways the government could make our lives hell if it ignored the law, we're in for a long night.

[Bonobo]

149. Did Jose Padilla ever engage in combat? nt

[Recursion]

151. As I've said several times, his treatment was found to be illegal by a court

And it basically wrecked the government's entire case, and he was within a hair's breadth of walking away scot-free before the Government dropped their entire case and presented a new theory.

[Bonobo]

155. You said that Snowden could not be declared an enemy combatant.

I provided a clear example of how he very well could.

And your "but but but he was nearly freed" does little to change that.

Padilla was never in combat. Snowden was never in combat.

It is no guarantee that he could not be put in military prison considering the current environment and no, tinfoil does not apply.

[Recursion]

156. No, the attempt to charge Padilla as an enemy combatant failed

He was held as one for two years and a court made the Government stop that. Do you think the courts have changed their minds since then? Padilla was tried and convicted in an open civilian court with standard voir dire.

[Bonobo]

159. He was grabbed and tortured as an "enemy combatant".

End of story.

It is a real threat.

No tinfoil because it has happened.

[Recursion]

160. And that was ruled illegal by a court

Why do you keep ignoring that? Courts are who establish the interpretation of law, and they have been unanimous on this question.

[Bonobo]

163. I'm not.

But YOU are ignoring the fact that they knew it was wrong to grab him on that basis but did so anyway.

From his or Snowden's POV, your academic argument is not persuasive enough to risk facing torture. As a practical matter.

[Recursion]

165. They attempted a stretchy interpretation on a topic with no case law

They were slapped down by a court for it. That means they don't try it again.

From his or Snowden's POV, your academic argument is not persuasive enough to risk facing torture. As a practical matter.


normal civilian prison is bad enough for me, personally.

[Bonobo]

167. Agree to disagree

But I think, at the least, I have established a reasonable enough case for it NOT being tinfoilery to be concerned about winding up in military prison.

[Bonobo]

148. Jose Padilla also never engaged in combat.

And yet he was declared an enemy combatant.

[Recursion]

150. And a judge held the law was broken, and came very close to setting him free

The Government had to drop their entire case and re-file.

[Bonobo]

152. "Very close".

That would be funny if it weren't so sad.

But he has been in military prison for 10 years where he was tortured.

So in light of that, just how tinfoil-ish is it really to consider that Snowden's concerns were quite justified?

[Recursion]

154. He's not in a military prison. What are you talking about?

He's in Florence ADX, serving a 17 year sentence for conspiracy to commit kidnapping and murder.

[Bonobo]

157. You;re right. He was only tortured in military prison for 3 years. nt

[Recursion]

158. Yes, and he sought and obtained relief from the courts

And the courts made it clear that what the Government did was illegal.

[Bonobo]

161. So the threat is real.

Just because he was freed after years of torture in a military prison as an enemy combatant despite never being in combat does NOT preclude the possibility of it happening again.

Your tinfoil hat was inappropriate as was your "wow" comment.

This is not like saying the moon landing never happened, Recursion.

[Recursion]

162. No, that's established case law now. There wasn't case law on this before Padilla

That's how precedent works.

[Bonobo]

164. Your argument is persuasive unless it would be your ass on the rack. nt

[Recursion]

166. *shrug* Like I said, I can think of a million ways the government could screw us if it ignored law

But I don't see the point.

[Bonobo]

168. The point is that if it was your ass and it had been done in the past...

You would be smart to at least consider it a possibility.

[jberryhill]

58. Dramatic effect

[treestar]

61. They don't know or understand the difference

and don't plan to try.

[avebury]

62. Because the US is a coutnry that does

condone torture and would be just as liable to give Snowden the same treatment as Manning (particularly if they can get their hands out Snowden outside of the US and make make him a victim of extraordinary rendition.

[baldguy]

67. Because Obama is a power-mad dictator who likes to murder his enemies bare-handed.

At least, he is according to Snowdens fans - and the Teabaggers, and the Paulbots, and Alex Jones fans, and the LaRouchies, etc, etc.

[Igel]

68. Not because Snowden could end up in a military prison.

But because Snowden, seeing how Manning was treated, would probably assume that the same fate lay in store for him.

He'd be wrong--certainly in the details, probably in the overall picture. But people act on wrong assumptions and mistaken beliefs all the time.

Esp., if a bit of snark may be allowed, Snowden. Since he has a clear track record in this regard, it seems unwarranted to assume he'd depart from it.

[Drew Richards]

81. Does that mean you do not believe if caught, they might not consider tossing him in a

Cell at Gitmo and play a little game called rendition?

[Recursion]

85. Correct, I think that kind of talk is batshit insane craziness (nt)

[Drew Richards]

102. Well I will have to go look it up but if he is possibly charged with treason I believe his

Standard first stop for incarcation is ft levenworth kansas and isolation but, that was before gitmo came to be the lovely vacation spot that it is.

[Recursion]

103. He's not charged with treason

He's charged with dissemination and espionage.

[Arcanetrance]

82. Not to sound like a complete conspiracy nut but given our recent use of things like rendition

and yes the treatment of Manning granted he is a member of the military. I could see Snowden being subjected to harsh treatments its become easier and easier to name someone an enemy combatant and skirt the law. I could see the government finding a way to stretch the current laws or invent one to charge him with so that he will be subjected to the most hell they can possibly put him through.

[arely staircase]

93. He will have all the rights and protections any accused federal felon has.

He won't be on a military brig (and I agree that Manning's original conditions were deplorable, and that has since ended.) He probably won't get bail since his flight risk potential in unquestionable.

[RedCappedBandit]

135. It doesn't even matter

Civilian prisons are bad enough.

[NuclearDem]

137. Yeah, after all there's no chance of a civilian ending up in a military prison without trial...

Oh wait...

[Bonobo]

146. Yup.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/José_Padilla_(prisoner)

[bravenak]

138. As a person who has family and friends in prison. Bradley Manning was not tortured any more

Than the average prisoner. There are people who have been in solitary for five plus years. That's torture. They cram them into cells like farm animals going to slaughter. He is living good compared to them. Really good. Doesnt anyone care about the cruel and unusual punishment doled out to the prisoners in our prison industrial complex? My uncle preferred the brig to the California prison system, better food, better treatment.
Snowden will go to real prison, where other civilians go when they commit a crime if he returns to the us. Like everyone else, he's not above the law.

[TheMadMonk]

169. You are 100% correct. Instead he can be charged under a whole suite of SECRET laws, we, he AND...

...his lawyers, not to mention Congress and even the relevant sub-committees are forbidden to know the specific details of.

24/7 lockdown, for fear of what he might say to an un-authorised person, pretrial and the same after.

OR if some lip service is paid to his human rights, it will be in the form of a string of play actors pretending to be prisoners, tasked to monitor and inform.

Again. You are 100% correct, he won't suffer Bradly Manning's fate, it would be enormously worse.

[Recursion]

172. And your basis for this fantasy is... ? (nt)

[TheMadMonk]

179. A little Carribean vacation resort known as Gitmo. Numerous reports on prisoner treatment...

...from sea to fucking shining sea. Bradly Manning's treatment. The general treatment of whistle blowers.

From. the efforts that are being taken now to silence/ shout him down. It is very, very clear the administration and intelligence community do not like him talking, do not want him talking and will take every measure possible to stop him from talking.

Thus it is no great stretch of the imagination, to conclude that in custody, his two most likely fates would be death or complete isolation from all outside contact.

[HardTimes99]

185. Because torture is as American as cherry pie (with apologies to

H. Rap Brown).