Stop the torture of Bradley Manning

I don't see how. That a newspaper has the right to print whatever words it chooses is not predicated on its access to every fact in existence.

Okay, so if you support freedom of the press, but think unfettered access to the military is not granted, than the only option you leave open is the military controlling access to it and it's members by the press. As such, what Manning did is completely unacceptable and he is deserving of everything that happens to him.
I do feel for you, as your spine must be in agony from being twisted into a pretzel by your constant contradictory posts.

I read that as "not allowed access," rather than simply unable to obtain it.

Neither of these points follow logically from the prior one. There is such a thing as civilian control and oversight of the military. There is such a thing as legitimate whistle-blowing. And there is such a thing as an oath that is not worth upholding.

The only "contradictions" you percieve are between the nonsense that you falsely attribute to me and what I actually say.

Why are you assuming that I concur with the status quo for "regular people" either?

"Regular citizens" should also be allowed to say whatever they wish, with the obvious exceptions where doing so is direct participation in a crime that's in progress. (Such as telling someone to "Shoot him!" for instance.)

But exposing citizens to mortal danger by revealing state secrets doesn't qualify for that exception, because....

I do tend to agree that private citizens should be able to say what they want to say. This simply seems... logical to me. However, there are exceptions to the rule!

How about yelling "Jump!" at jackasses threatening to cannonball from a skyscrapers ledge?

Considering he is being charged with aiding the enemy, I think the court (or military tribunal, whatever the term is) might want to have the prosecutor specify who that enemy is and just how he aided them. Is it a specific enemy or just everyone who hates us in general?

By that definition, inciting to crime should not be limited, since it is not a crime "in progress". For example, on my Facebook page (if I were silly enough to participate in that particular form of nonsense), I should be able to say: "Will someone, anyone, just please shoot the President and deliver us from this madness!"

Furthermore, by your definition, I should be able, with impunity, to say what I want about anyone, no matter how damaging. For example, on that same imaginary Facebook page, I could say: "Our mayor, Frank Smith, pretends that he is serious in limiting crime, but in fact he is participating in it himself. Three credible witnesses have testified that last May, at a track and field meeting organised by the Lions' Club, he was caught touching young boys in the locker room." The fact that I just made it all up because I'm working for the other party shouldn't make any difference.

I'm not at all sure I would want to live in a world where your definition of "freedom of speech" was what served as a rule of law.

That Frank Smith is a bastard, won't somebody just please shoot him already?

Come on...seriously?

You think there aren't people in the GP that want to hurt this little Benedict Arnold?

Considering the number of people in the general population where he is being held is around 40-50 and that inmates are there for a very short period of time, the odds are low.

What is Jesus's middle name?

No, you are wrong. You are using "blind" to mean "can't see well at all." I have worked extensively with blind people (I learned to use a computer from a blind person, among other things) as well as with those who are seriously impaired in their sight. If your sight can be made so that you can read without glasses, then you can still see light very well, you can tell when people are in front of you even though they are very blurry, and so on.

I'm thinking of one woman whose sight is so bad that she can read only with huge thick glasses and a very powerful magnifier. Glasses alone, of any kind, would not be enough for her to read. Yet, without anything, she is hardly "blind." This is the kind of exaggeration that is used for sensationalism rather than communicating facts, and that serves only to distort the language.

Furthermore, as plenty of others have pointed out, people with eyesight that bad could never be in the military. That you react so strongly to having it pointed out that the article is not really trustworthy or objective shows that you are not at all objective, either. Do you really think every word printed on the World Socialist website is gospel?

I hope they stand the treasonous little shit against a wall and shoot him.

As I said, you're basically a fascist. I don't expect you to agree.

And yeah, freedom of speech ought to include saying that people should shoot the president and so forth. That's essentially sedition.

Further abuse of Bradley Manning - Manning held naked in cell

My only regret is that they don't do this with every Senator who leaks classified information to Fox or the NYT.

We already have a thread about "elder porn".

I'm quite sure somewhere in the doctrine is a reason for stripping people naked. In SERE training (probably spelled wrong, but basically how to survive/escape being taken prisoner) at one location, they strip you naked, wet you down (IT WAS SHRINKAGE!) and female cadre members laugh at your manhood and mock you.

I don't know why Bradley Manning was stripped, but I just can't feel any pity for him, and still haven't yet met an Army associate who does feel any.

You spelled it correctly, Survive Evade Resist Escape.

If only all they did was strip you down and laugh at you. How about stripping you all naked, putting you in 'the pits' and having you roll around while they spray you with hoses.

At night.

In early November.

Worse was when you were in the cages and they were spraying you down. At least when you were done in the pits you went back to work so you could at least move around and get a little warm. In the cages not only could you not get out of the wind, but you couldn't even move so you just huddled there shivering.

By what standard do you claim that I am a fascist?

And why should advocacy of violence and sedition be protected speech?

Why should any right be unlimited?

Enough about what you do on your weekends! How was SERE training?

Anyway, glad to know my buddy wasn't bullshitting me. And I know broken bones are not uncommon either.
I do know when I was in The Air Force the pilots talked about similiar training. One thing I thought was weird...they crammed them into a small box (like some magician's assistant would get into) and pushed the box down the stairs! That really has to suck.

By the standard of your extreme nationalism, regressive social views, authoritarianism and open support for imperialism.

The burden of proof runs entirely in the opposite direction. It is for those who would limit such a right to provide justification.

Fair enough. I agree with all those things.

Though when I think "fascist" I tend to think of 1930s Italy or 1970s Argentina.

I prefer "NeoConservative" as in 21st Century America.

I have a NeoConservative Emblem as the cover of my Official Scrapbook.

It is fortunate that the type of views that you hold aren't the dominant ones in "21st century America".

The Supreme Court has ruled that religious groups may essentially inflict great emotional damage at any time of their choosing.

And as for Mr. Smith, political commentators already accuse their opponents of fictional misdeeds - for example, as you well know many of the accusations against President Obama made by the media are patently false. Your example therefore differs from reality only slightly in degree; it is perfectly feasible that a particularly enthusiastic "journalist" could accuse a political figure of virtually anything and legally get away with it.