Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SalmonGod]

Anyone in any form or stage of penal custody in the U.S. has very, very few rights, and the ones that they do have are very weakly protected.

On top of that, Manning is a political prisoner.

[Sheb]

Well, that's military law, which is harsh.

Now, the thing is, I'm really afraid they are going to stick her in solitary for ages, given the way she was treated pre-trial. Also, given the way they seem to want to stick anything they can on her (expired toothpase? Seriously?). Although that could just be her pissing off a CO.

[Bauglir]

I get the need for a semi-independent court system for the military for the sake of dealing with an organization whose environment is so radically different from civilian life and in which there are cultural necessities (such as in discipline) that would be abhorrent to apply to people who didn't volunteer for them. So military law being especially harsh, okay. But it seems to me that if you're dishonorably discharging somebody, the point is that they have so flagrantly violated the standards of the organization that they're being expelled from it. And, to the point here, if they're no longer a part of that organization, there's no longer any reason to subject them to military standards of discipline; they're no longer participating in the culture themselves, trustworthy soldiers will be deterred by the threat of discharge in the first place (so no harsh example needs to be made for them), and untrustworthy ones will not be deterred at all because they largely assume they'll not be caught (so no harsh example will be productive for them).

Obviously, dishonorable discharge as a get-out-of-jail-free card would be dumb, but the sensible thing to do would be to give them a criminal or civil trial for their misdeeds. Maybe it would even be reasonable if they had some additional baggage, for example a significant reduction in what they could have a reasonable expectation of privacy for on account of their chosen profession. And they'd start out with a hefty disadvantage because, presumably, the record of the court martial would be admissible and none too favorable. This just feels vindictive and arbitrary.

Isn't the USA supposed to be one of the Good Guys? Aren't we supposed to make some attempt at treating prisoners honestly and honorably, in spite of the fact that they very well might not deserve it?

[Frumple]

Yes to the first, no to the second. Since we're the Good Guys, that means that the Bad Guys deserve no good treatment and whatever we do to them is justified since we're a priori in the right and they're a priori in the wrong due to being Bad. A great swath of our country is pretty okay with prisoners being beaten, raped, and/or tortured, regardless of what they actually did. Usually by other prisoners for at least the middle one, but still. And military malcontents? Ha.

You'll note that the immediate response from one of our military folks was "hopefully someone loses the key", i.e. indefinite, extended, solitary (aka explicit torture) is not just A-Okay, but desirable.

[Helgoland]

On top of that, Manning is a political prisoner.

Highly debatable.

[Strife26]

That was admittedly not the best or most accurate turn of phrase that I could have used. Manning was sentenced with 35 years in Leavenworth with a chance of parole after 8; I find that a completely reason punishment for a stupid, easily manipulated, ego-driven kid. Beyond that, I find the idea that completely regular, purely internal prison issues are an important concern for the greater outside world to be more than a little ridiculous.

 On initial paperwork like that, one always always always lists the maximum punishment available. Anything less, and Joe is going to claim that he didn't understand exactly what he was facing. I've personally been threatened, on a piece of paper not very different than that one, with reduction of rank, forfeiture of half my pay for sixth months, and a dishonorable discharge. This was all for similar in scope to expired toothpaste offense of not vacuuming a carpet. Now, if Chelsea is actually getting thrown into solitary for an extended length of time on general offenses, I could see maybe wondering what the hell the staff at Leavenworth is doing. As is? It's just another Manning-started reminder of the gulf between the professional military culture and the general civilian one.



I'd argue that the civilian court system is not remotely suitable for trying the majority of military offenses. It's an entirely different culture, law book, standards, and circumstances. The Uniform Code of Military Justice isn't a bad bit of legal code, and the civilian side still does fun things like occasionally pass down effective death sentences for pot possession.

[Sebastian2203]

I did not find any suitable thread for this,so I post it here.

ToadyOne will soon reach 10 000 posts, yay.

[TD1]

The Happy Thread would be better.

[Calidovi]

Yes to the first, no to the second. Since we're the Good Guys, that means that the Bad Guys deserve no good treatment and whatever we do to them is justified since we're a priori in the right and they're a priori in the wrong due to being Bad. A great swath of our country is pretty okay with prisoners being beaten, raped, and/or tortured, regardless of what they actually did.

On a slightly connected note, aren't independent drug dealers (not cartel or gang members) having sentences reworked?

[Loud Whispers]

How do you fight drug cartels without fighting its demand? It'd be like decriminalizing ivory trade but only going after poachers and runners

[Frumple]

You don't. Unless you go out and literally blow them up, I suppose, and we're not quite ready to go and explicitly conquer south/central america, yet.

... if it's not obvious by now that the US treatment of the drug situation in this country is completely bughumpingly incompetent, you haven't been paying much attention.

[Loud Whispers]

You don't fight cartels? But then that spreads funding to criminal and terrorist organizations from Colombia to Afghanistan

[Frumple]

It does! You've identified an aspect of the state of current US efforts against the drug trade. Congrats, I guess.

Being equitable, most of the other major countries in the world more or less have their thumbs firmly jammed up their arse on the subject, too *shrugs*

E: There are some more direct efforts, for what it's worth, from what I understand. Cooperation between US organizations and the people directly working against cartels down south, stuff like that. It's just relatively little and not even remotely enough to meaningfully impact supply and whatnot. Generally we just kinda' stick our heads in the ground, shit on local folks for relatively minor drug possession and whatnot crimes, and then pat ourselves on the back and call it day, having done little to nothing and probably making the situation worse.

[Calidovi]

But then that spreads funding to criminal and terrorist organizations from Colombia to Afghanistan

Wait, is ISIS the only organization dependent on oil revenues? I have no idea about foreign affairs, as I am an American.

[Loud Whispers]

But then that spreads funding to criminal and terrorist organizations from Colombia to Afghanistan

Wait, is ISIS the only organization dependent on oil revenues? I have no idea about foreign affairs, as I am an American.

They're also heavy into drug money. Half of all Europe's heroin runs through ISIS controlled Iraq, giving them a lucrative cut in some new silk road made out of drugs. And it's all being grown in Afghanistan to boot.


*EDIT
Make a new thread on the war on drugs? It's a very big topic, and very interesting too