Hacker News Reader

Comment by mpyne | Hacker News Reader

Manning is in the military, UCMJ applies.

Likewise he was held in Quantico Brig from July 2010 to April 2011, which is half again what you claim. His treatment was bad enough that it's not as if you have to lie about it to make your point.

Likewise, he was under formal charges since July 5th, 2010, and has been under the most-recent set of charges since March 1, 2011.

Likewise again, his detention has nothing to do with NDAA. A civilian court could just as easily remand someone to custody for the entire duration of a trial, even if it takes awhile.

All of this is easily available on Wikipedia. Now I'll add some hyperbole: Are there any Manning supporters who don't have to resort to misleading people or to outright lying?

View on HN

Nice information, but you don't have to accuse people of lying. Most likely they're misremembering structurally minor details which don't distract from the main point -- which is that he was held under conditions tantamount to torture, and in an abuse process: in particular, a dubious interpretation of the "Prevention of Injury" status.

If you want to go after liars, go after people who pretend to believe that unnecessary solitary confinement (military or civilian) isn't torture. Or that drone (and vanilla) airstrikes aren't killing civilians in large numbers.

Are there any Manning supporters who don't have to resort to misleading people or to outright lying?

I think you answered that yourself:

His treatment was bad enough that it's not as if you have to lie about it to make your point.

You know, it's entirely possible they were just mistaken.

Chill.

It's 2013 now. Manning was taken into custody in 2010. When do we get to assume people seriously debating the events around Manning's trial will at least be vaguely aware of the big details? Especially since we're discussing Manning in the context of wider U.S. legal policy now.

Garbage in means garbage out, every time. How can you draw accurate parallels from one case to another if you don't even bother to do the barest of research about the case you're drawing from?

> Are there any Manning supporters who don't have to resort to misleading people or to outright lying?

I like to think of myself as one.

>Manning is in the military, UCMJ applies.

Can you show me what the UCMJ has about detention, and treatment of the detained?

It's all in 10 U.S.C. You can also download the Manual for Courts-Martial which includes all of the UCMJ articles (and IIRC, even the equivalent of 'annotated diffs'). I believe the latest MCM is from 2012.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com