Breaking: Quantico Guards Harass/Detain Approved Bradley Manning Visitors

by Liza Jane Posted 2011/01/23 20:52:25

More polls by Liza Jane

Bronar 2011/01/28 20:14:12

Sounds like we're only getting one side of the story. My guess is they didn't exactly go down for a quiet visit. Who exactly did they want to deliver the petition to. Did they demand to see who was in charge or were they just looking to show it to the guard who let them in? Did they continue to make demands as to who to present it to until they were considered breaking rules or a threat? I'd need to know more before I could make a decision. Let's get this trial over with and fast.

reply
crimson dragon 2011/01/25 01:34:16

+1
Well I looked at the links and I sure as heck don't understand what's going on. Why shouldn't Manning be allowed visitors? Why should he be in solitary confinement? Everybody's got to play these stupid games.

reply
Liza Jane to crimson... 2011/01/25 22:51:36

They're breaking him down mentally so he'll give an anti-WikiLeaks confession/testimony... that's my hypothesis.

reply
crimson... to Liza Jane 2011/01/27 01:54:05

Could be. It just seems that in the process they loose the support of a lot more citizens than they have to gain. Are they (the government) really trying to protect the country or they just looking for revenge?

reply
Colbert 2011/01/24 17:28:08

+1
Welcome to Rome 2011.

reply
sue 2011/01/24 08:23:25

+1
Something tells me this is not official policy, but a general feeling of hatred for this particular prisoner, who has admitted that he released documents that put their brothers and sisters in uniform at risk. I can see why they hate him and want to irritate his visitors. Still, they shouldn't do it.

reply
luvguins 2011/01/24 05:29:29

+1
Apparently torture didn't end with Bush, and there are some bad apples in the military when one thinks of abu grabe. He deserved to see the visitors, and he deserves a expeditious trial. I bet others are involved, and that is being covered up like Pat Tillman's death was.

reply
Liza Jane to luvguins 2011/01/24 05:35:45

I know it sounds paranoid but approved visitors who were scheduled to be there not allowed to see him... hmm... sounds like they don't want him SEEN if you know what I mean.

reply
luvguins to Liza Jane 2011/01/24 19:26:48

+1
Yes, I wondered about that also.

reply
jams 2011/01/24 01:39:32

Well maybe she should take her insurance card with her next time she tries to drive on to a military base in order to embarass the United States for holding a prisoner.

reply
Liza Jane to jams 2011/01/24 02:25:29

+1
David House is a regular visitor of Manning; he's been there before many times. They were scheduled to be there and approved visitors. What the Quantico guards did is illegal. How would you like to be detained for hours with no explanation as to why?

reply
jams to Liza Jane 2011/01/24 02:34:18

Apparently by having someone drive you there who fails to bring the simple paperwork needed to legally enter a military base in a car. Specifically, her insurance card.

Occam's Razor. Sometimes the solution is simple.

reply
Liza Jane to jams 2011/01/24 02:36:25

+1
They had a digital copy; that's acceptable in any situation unless you're obviously being harassed. Plus, they wouldn't have been detained for that and weren't questioned about it until after they were detained. The MP's simply wouldn't have allowed them past the gate.

This was about intimidation. It's very obvious. Try reading Hamsher's statement:

http://fdlaction.firedoglake....

reply
Tits ISHBAHFF McGee 2011/01/23 22:45:43

+1
I had to google who this person was, the name didn't ring a bell.

I have mixed feelings, if I break confidentiality in my job I'd run the risk of being fired and maybe fined depending on how extensive it was. I don't know why his situation is any different as far as breaking confidentiality. The Wikileaks is revealing some bizarre information globally. Are others who have leaked info being held in prison, in other countries? The Info this guy leaked- was it something that we all should know?

reply
Liza Jane to Tits IS... 2011/01/23 23:49:14

He uncovered a lot of things that Americans should know about their childish politicians and many other things; go to the WikiLeaks site and look around. It's very interesting.

reply
Che Guevara - Hero 2011/01/23 22:15:11

+3
I think it will be necessary to give him a trial before we pass judgment. How did he get so much access ? Where were the safeguards ? IHMO, Military superiors will always try and impart full blame to the lowest man on the totem pole. Why aren't any of his officers or NCO's in custody ?

reply
Tits IS... to Che Gue... 2011/01/23 22:20:46

+2
Good questions. How did he have so much info if he was low man on the totem?

reply
Randy 2011/01/23 21:46:18

+1
I feel there just might be an exaggeration from Hamsher and House in this feed from firedoglake. They do lean a little to the left in their politics and law.

reply
Liza Jane to Randy 2011/01/23 23:50:05

How is being illegally detained for two hours exaggerating? I don't think so. I hope they take legal action and shine a national light on this situation.

reply
Randy to Liza Jane 2011/01/24 02:09:57 (edited)

He should have been shot for treason. I am a veteran and have guarded prisoners while in service. The only beef this clown has is that he joined the military for, probably, the reason he's in the situation he is in now.

reply
Liza Jane to Randy 2011/01/24 02:25:53

He has to have a trial first; that's how things work in America. You should know that.

reply
Randy to Liza Jane 2011/01/24 09:13:38

Now, it wasn't always so.

reply
☥☽✪☾DAW ☽✪☾ 2011/01/23 21:23:17

+2
Bradley E. Manning (born December 17, 1987) is a United States Army soldier who was charged in July 2010 with the unauthorized disclosure of U.S. classified information. He is being held in "maximum custody" at the Marine Corps Brig, Quantico, Virginia

so hes a traitor to his country and we are suppose to care why?

reply
Narcole... to ☥☽✪☾DAW... 2011/01/23 21:36:21

+1
So if he breaks laws he gets treated so badly. But WE break laws treating him that way. That makes us all traitors. And you don't care why?

The government doesn't have to obey laws? That means you have *0* freedoms. The only thing protecting you and your family from government is LAWS.

But you don't seem to care.

reply
Liza Jane to Narcole... 2011/01/23 21:39:45

+4
Thank you.

This isn't about Manning; this is about how his visitors were treated illegally.

reply
☥☽✪☾DAW... to Narcole... 2011/01/23 21:41:41

im not going to shed tears over a traitor to the country

reply
Narcole... to ☥☽✪☾DAW... 2011/01/23 22:31:14

+1
Nor will you complain about *anything* any cop does, any governor, any president, any IRS official with a personal grudge against you. They, unlike you, are above the law. Your rights are worthless to you.

If you are victimized by the government don't expect any tears from any one here.

reply
DerekHo... to ☥☽✪☾DAW... 2011/01/23 23:09:33

+1
This isn't about a traitor. This is about YOU, and YOUR rights. But you've already proven that you care little for American freedoms, or the American Constitution.

reply
Liza Jane to ☥☽✪☾DAW... 2011/01/23 23:50:43

It isn't about HIM; it's about the approved visitors who where scheduled to be there detained to prevent them from vising him.

reply
rocat to Narcole... 2011/01/23 22:11:22

+1
those laws are called the constitution--
and i have been assured repeatedly by the libprog left--
that it is outdated-
and is presumptuous to reference it--

thoughts???

reply
Che Gue... to rocat 2011/01/23 22:18:19

+2
Oh, you mean like all the people who have been detained at Gitmo without charges or any due process for nearly 10 years ?

reply
rocat to Che Gue... 2011/01/23 22:26:45

no-
there is no congruence between my statement and yours-
are you by chance replying to the wrong post?

reply
Narcole... to Che Gue... 2011/01/23 22:34:56

+2
and the ones kidnapped without warrant, and those detained and tortured without warrant, and ...

oh, the list of evil is useless, since Bush supporters cannot *STAND* having rights.

reply
Narcole... to rocat 2011/01/23 22:33:29

+2
You have been assured by the libprog left that we are *extremely* upset at those of you that were so anxious to shred the constitution to tiny bits anytime Bush wanted. Conservative supporters of Bush have not a single tiny remnant of a leg to stand on, since no Bush supporter ever said "boo" when he ended habeus corpus.

reply
rocat to Narcole... 2011/01/23 22:56:18

not a bush man--
not seen any of what you whine of fixed either 2+years and counting....

reply
Narcole... to rocat 2011/01/23 23:07:30

+1
So, you don't care about loosing rights our forefathers had for 900 years?

I haven't seen it fixed yet and I'm pissed.

But if you consider opposing the loss of our freedoms "whining" you must support it.

reply
rocat to Narcole... 2011/01/23 23:10:01

900 years--???
get an education-
news flash-
most at gitmo are not americans-
constitution does not apply-

reply
Narcole... to rocat 2011/01/23 23:15:40

+1
Oops, I meant 700 years.

And "most" is not none.

and those laws and constitutional amemdments RESTRICT WHAT THE GOVERNMENT CAN DO to people. By all means, cease to complain about anything any government official or body does. Ever.

reply
rocat to Narcole... 2011/01/23 23:19:59

700---ok thats much better--
???
cease to complain-who me??
lol-- hardly
your mis-characterizations are replete-

reply
Narcole... to rocat 2011/01/23 23:47:38

+1
Habeus corpus started around 1300.

And I'm glad you complain about infringement of liberties.

reply