Yip. It was one of the reasons I decided not to pursue EMT after taking the registry, I don't think I could maintain professionalism on scene of some crackhead that just beat their kid into a coma, or the like.
Should have left it as is and just used a soldering iron to cauterise the wounds.
I have no forgiveness for these kinds of people. Death would be too sweet for them.
Yip. It was one of the reasons I decided not to pursue EMT after taking the registry, I don't think I could maintain professionalism on scene of some crackhead that just beat their kid into a coma, or the like.
I'm asking you a question, not insulting you. Are you sexually attracted to Bradley Manning? Do you cry at his situation? A simple yes or no would suffice. I'm only asking because your reasoning here is illogical and doesn't make any sense to me. You claim that solitary confinement is illegal when it isn't. I can only deduce that you are arguing from an emotional point of view.
Just keep showing you are incapable of rational discussion with the insults. GG. You can't debate the facts, so go with emotional appeals and insults. Which is funny, since I post facts, you post emotional appeals.
If you can't read the law and understand it, there is no point talking to you, since you are incapable of having a rational discussion.
I could care less about him. I only care about the LAW being followed. The LAW isn't being followed, as I have shown. No one has shown any proof to the contrary. No one. I have absolutely no problem with him being detained (and not mistreated), and given his day in court, and being found guilty/innocent by a judge/jury. If found guilty, I expect appropriate sentencing.
He is innocent until proven guilty. You may not like that, but that is the law. UCMJ states clearly you cannot punish someone not yet convicted. FACT. Yet here he is, in 23 hour lockdown. No one can give a legitimate reason why. FACT. You and others pulling magical "what-ifs" out of your ass don't count as legitimate reason, BTW.
You and the other people in the thread pull out all the emotional appeals (he's gay, he's a traitor, do you love him, he's in the military, it's OK, I hope he dies, etc.........) because you have no legal reason to excuse his treatment. If it was any of you accused of a crime and were treated like that, you would have your whole family protesting, but since it is someone you don't like, you are OK with it, and try to rationalize it away. That is NOT following the law. You are arguing emotionally, not me.
The law applies equally to people you like and people you don't. If you don't follow that, you obviously don't care about the law.
So what are you going to do if he is found innocent? Demand he still be locked up? Hope someone goes vigilante and kills him?
I could care less about him. I only care about the LAW being followed.
Yet you have not shown wherre the law is not being followed - just your personal concience/desiresI could care less about him. I only care about the LAW being followed.
Change that to "I only care about the LAW being followed when the LAW coincides with my personal views.."
Don't get upset, we all treat forum arguments this way
Yet you have not shown wherre the law is not being followed - just your personal concience/desires
<bunch of patently false BS clipped
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.
For 23 hours per day, he will sit in his cell. The guards will check on him every five minutes by asking him if he is okay. PFC Manning will be required to respond in some affirmative manner. At night, if the guards cannot see him clearly, because he has a blanket over his head or is curled up towards the wall, they will wake him in order to ensure that he is okay. He will receive each of his meals in his cell. He will not be allowed to have a pillow or sheets. He will not be allowed to have any personal items in his cell. He will only be allowed to have one book or one magazine at any given time to read. The book or magazine will be taken away from him at the end of the day before he goes to sleep. He will be prevented from exercising in his cell. If he attempts to do push-ups, sit-ups, or any other form of exercise he will be forced to stop. He will receive one hour of exercise outside of his cell daily. The guards will take him to an empty room and allow him to walk. He will usually just walk in figure eights around the room until his hour is complete. When he goes to sleep, he will be required to strip down to his underwear and surrender his clothing to the guards.
PFC Manning is being treated differently. He is the only detainee being held in Maximum (MAX) custody and under Prevention of Injury (POI) watch. Every other detainee is being held in Medium Detention In (MDI) and without POI watch restrictions. What is the difference?
<sigh> I guess it's true, people just don't like to belive the truth when it conflicts with their own beliefs.
Just to show how you are 100% wrong:
UCMJ quote (again, since you refuse to read it)
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.
Again, read the bolded part. The military may not do ONE SINGLE THING more then what is needed to get him physically to trial safely.
He is confined in a military facility, his confinement conforms with the UCMJ.
They are insuring he makes it to trial instead of being killed in general population.
Can you really claim that all of the above is needed for his safety? Docotrs say he is not a suicide threat, so the only safety issues would have to come frmo other people. FACT.
So how does no exercise in his cell protect him from others?
How does stripping to his underwear protect him from others?
How does waking him up if his head is covered protect him from others?
How does taking away all books at night protect him from others?
How does not having a pillow or sheets protect him from others?
Wow, I guess people really do have reading issues on this forum. Don't feel bad, apparently you are in the majority or people that are incapable of reading and understanding facts.
Because if you could read, you would quickly find out how wrong you really are.
So, is the government illegally holding him in solitary confinement or do you think they are illegally holding him in solitary confinement?Wow, I guess people really do have reading issues on this forum. Don't feel bad, apparently you are in the majority or people that are incapable of reading and understanding facts.
Because if you could read, you would quickly find out how wrong you really are.
<sigh> I guess it's true, people just don't like to belive the truth when it conflicts with their own beliefs.
Just to show how you are 100% wrong:
UCMJ quote (again, since you refuse to read it)
Again, read the bolded part. The military may not do ONE SINGLE THING more then what is needed to get him physically to trial safely. NOTHING. NO PUNISHMENT. Just safely detain him so he isn't hurt and gets to his trial. You and everyone else have not put forward one fact to dispute it. Not one.
Now read his treatment:
Can you really claim that all of the above is needed for his safety? Docotrs say he is not a suicide threat, so the only safety issues would have to come frmo other people. FACT.
So how does no exercise in his cell protect him from others?
How does stripping to his underwear protect him from others?
How does waking him up if his head is covered protect him from others?
How does taking away all books at night protect him from others?
How does not having a pillow or sheets protect him from others?
Man up and explain why you think that these measures (which are are when he is locked in a cell alone), have anything to do with his safety from other people. Put or shut, because 11 pages in, you have yet to post any facts or evidence to support your BS.
And to further show your and others "wishes" and "beliefs" are wrong, here is his lawyer discussing the facts of his confinement:
Link
Gee, just like everyone else huh? More BS on everyones part. So much for everyone gets treated like that.
So again, man up and put up some proof. Please explain how you think this treatment meets the UCMJ standards.
He is being treated unlike all other detainees. FACT.
He is not a suicide risk. FACT
So he is being treated more harshly then the law says The question is why?
Perhaps they figure he is guilty, and deserves it?
Perhaps they have no evidence, and are trying to break him?
Well Einstein, if Manning is not being confined/held properly under the UCMJ why hasn't his lawyer, Senators, and Congressman demanded that the government comply with the UCMJ?
I guess you feel your interpretation of the UCMJ is what everyone should follow and not what the Military deems to be in compliance with the UCMJ.
Are there other self professed information leakers in this prison? If there are, then he should be treated just like them. Is he being treated like these others there who are also accused of intentional treason?
So, is the government illegally holding him in solitary confinement or do you think they are illegally holding him in solitary confinement?
I'm sorry to point out your ignorance, but he has not been convicted of anything yet, so please re-read the UCMJ to educate yourself.He admitted himself did he not that he gave out the information to someone??? Or did I miss the news (entirely possible) that that was not the case and he didn't say that?
Oh, and when you are taking your civics class in high school, ask your teacher about this neat concept of "innocent until proven guilty". You might actually learn something.
Unless you feel it is legal to stat punishing people before they have a trial?
If feel the need for people that have Federal data that is classified that leak it intentionally (must be proven), to be imprisoned until their trial, Yes. And if they're found guilty, they can have 3 forms of punishment depending on the severity of the crime:
1.) Chop off a finger (no pain killer).
2.) Chop off whole hand (no pain killer).
3.) Death.
You don't see a problem with that do you, given that the intentional leaking of Federal classified information is treason, something that should be dealt with in the most severe manner?
Chuck
Yes, it is because if the government was any more lenient (sic?) the other prisoners would hang him by his balls. Otherwise, the government would have to guard him everywhere he goes. It's cheaper to keep him by himself than have him shadowed. This may be hard for you to understand but the government does deal with hypotheticals and prisoners do get the news.So answer yes or no: Is his treatment the minimum needed to safely get to trial?
That is the only question here. If no, it's in violation of the UCMJ and illegal.
If yes, please defend you answer with some actual proof explaining why all those restrictions are needed to protect him in some form, given that the physicians have said he is not a suicide risk. Especially all those restrictions while he is alone in his cell, LOL, away from where anyone could even possibly harm him.
It is a simple yes/no question. Do you have the guts to answer it and actually defend it with facts.
You're such an asshole. I'm sure manning would love to fuck you.Keep up the good work, Garfield. But it is probably a waste of time talking to the scum responding to you. It's like trying to convince Charles Manson about a moral issue.
Keep up the good work, Garfield. But it is probably a waste of time talking to the scum responding to you. It's like trying to convince Charles Manson about a moral issue.