Political prisoners in the US

1. 89

   IslandBitesposted 10 years ago

   What's your opinion about political prisoners like Nelson Mandela, Gandhi...? Are you aware there has been and still are political prisoners in the United States (even though US government criticize and condemn other countries for the doing the same thing)? Some of them have been jailed for more than 30 years. Should the president release them immediately?

   replyreport
   1. 94

      wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I would have to know who they are, what the charge is and see any trial transcripts or documentation as to why they are in jail. 
      
      Partly, I admit, because I do not believe the US has held any political prisoners for 30 years.

      replyreport
   2. 65

      maxoxam41posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Manning belongs to the category of political prisoners. If the government doesn't want people to blow the whistle then they display full transparency as for their actions domestically and internationally. Our punishment is sometimes more subtle they fire them, make their lives miserable... Welcome to our democracy, our freedom of speech...
      To release them would entail that we are a democracy. Since we are not, you can guess the rest.

      replyreport
      1. 74

         Quilligrapherposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Hi, Max. It is me,Quill. What have you been up to lately.
         
         I read that it is your opinion Army Pfc. Bradley Manning is a political prisoner. While I respect your opinion, I wonder why you choose to ignore the truth just to discredit the USA.
         
         Truth No. 1. This ex-intelligence analyst is not facing charges based on his political beliefs, nor are political beliefs a valid defense for breaking the law.
         
         Truth No. 2. Most of the charges against the accused seem to be valid. He pled guilty to 10 of the charges thereby accepting punishment without objection and with no prior agreement to limit the ultimate sentences determined by the court martial.
         
         Truth No. 3. This is not a civil trial. He is subject to the Military Code of Justice and Pfc. Manning was fully aware of the consequences of his actions. 
         “Manning acknowledged that his actions were a discredit to the service and that he knew WikiLeaks was not authorized to have the information he provided.” {1}
         
         Truth No. 4. Pfc. Manning is not a whistle blower in any sense of the term. He was not trying to correct a specific misdeed. He allegedly leaked hundreds of thousands of government documents to WikiLeaks with willful disregard for the privacy and safety of his fellow solders in a war zone. When the Court Officer, Col. Denise Lind, asked if he knew his actions were wrong, he replied, "Yes, your honor." {2}
         
         Truth No. 5. He knew what he was doing if he intentionally allowed intelligence information to be published on the Internet, engaged in improper handling of classified information, and if he is found guilty of  any of the other counts he faces for conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline.
         
         He is not a political prisoner, Max, no matter how badly you wish that he was. Neither is he a whistle blower, Max, no matter how badly he wishes that he were. He breached security in a combat setting and he now must take responsibility for his deeds.
         
         I hope this finds you well and in fine spirits, Max.
         
         {1} http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02 … -june?lite
         {2} Ibid

         replyreport
         1. 52

            Shinkickerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Manning exposed the truth about the real criminals and the real crime. The Iraq War was an horrendous military disaster that has cost the Iraqi people heavily.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               +1

               replyreport
         2. 65

            maxoxam41posted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Most of the charges against the accused seem to be valid. What does "seem" mean in your context? What are the charges against him? Which defender will advise him to plead "not guilty" if he wants a reduced sentence? In a court you have to appear at your best, it also means remorseful. Does it mean that when anyone will face injustice they won't do what he did? It's another story. He broke the law of a company (the army) not his duty towards his country? America is us, the people. How often to do you question the secrecy surrounding? What are they hiding from us? What wouldn't I understand as the adult that I am? I know why. Because behind closed doors abuses are perpetrated.
            We should trial him too. He brought us information. He opened the door to truth. It is my main concern.
            If Manning is a traitor, so is Ellsberg!

            replyreport
            1. 74

               Quilligrapherposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               Hello there, Max.
               
               “Seem to be valid” is explained by the very next sentence in my post. Pfc. Manning entered a plea of guilty to 10 of the charges thereby accepting punishment without objection and with no prior agreement to limit the ultimate sentences determined by the court martial.{1}
               A court will determine if he violated his duty to his country. You do not get to decide and neither do I. He is facing 22 charges, including aiding the enemy, wrongfully causing intelligence to be published on the Internet knowing that it was accessible to the enemy, theft of public property or records, and transmitting defense information. If the court determines that the documents he released ultimately aided the enemy, Pfc. Manning could face life imprisonment. A sentence not based upon his political ideology but upon his having been found guilty of treason.
               
               I find it astonishing that you, a layman with little or no inside knowledge of this affair, would decide that Pfc. Manning deserves your applause before all the evidence has been presented and analyzed in a military court. You praise his having made sensitive military information available to the enemy and you extol his betrayal of trust because you revel from seeing defamation of the United States. I think I will wait until the trial is over before I decide.  It is a profound admission of ignorance to compare the Pentagon Papers to Pfc. Manning’s case. The Pfc. uploaded 251,287 U.S. diplomatic cables, over 400,000 classified army reports from the Iraq War and 90,000 army reports from the war in Afghanistan to Wikileaks. Ellsberg, a civilian at the time, distributed a Pentagon study of U.S. government decision-making in relation to the Vietnam War that did not place military personnel at risk.
               
               Peace be with you, Max. After all, is that not what we all hope for?
               
               {1} http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/113325#post2411143

               replyreport
         3. 65

            maxoxam41posted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Since I was banned for a week, I didn't have the pleasure to answer.
            When I referred to mean I only suggested your incertitude as for his situation.
            Aiding the enemy? Who was the enemy? Who did he give the info to? If the enemy doesn't exist physically, is there a case? How can you prove that the documents went to enemy hands?
            Theft of public property? If it's public property how come I don't have access to it? If it's public property meaning you, me, his in what way is it a theft? If it's public shouldn't he be trialed by the civilians it was taken from? Suddenly the army is defending the public interest! Sure.
            In 2005 Larry Franklin, member of the Office Special Plans, passed classified defense documents to 2 AIPAC officials Rosen and Weissman, who in turn transmitted them to a senior official in Israel. He was sentenced with 13 years in prison. If Manning is sentenced to life in what way is it justice or do we want to set an example in the rank of the army?
            A civilian transmitting classified "top secret" documents to the public through the newspaper (mean of communication). Documents in which he denounced the falsifications of the U.S. politico-military invilvement in the Vietnam war. Manning, military, transmitted public documents to the public with a new mean of communication, the internet.
            If Ellsberg did not transmit sensitive documents why do you think the government tried to cease the documents with a federal court injunction? Why did it escalate to the Supreme court (NYTimes v. United-States)?

            replyreport
            1. 74

               Quilligrapherposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               Hi Max. Sorry to read you had been banned. I hope you enjoyed the rest.
               
               I will not reply to a post filled with a dozen questions. Do your homework. Research the answers to your questions and come back with facts we can discuss. I will be here.
               

               replyreport
   3. 52

      Shinkickerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      30 years? That's interesting, do you have more info. Certainly the prisoners at Guantanomo have been incarcerated for up to 11 years now I think

      replyreport
      1. 89

         IslandBitesposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Yeah, but there were and still are political prisoners in US jails, specially from groups like the Black Panthers and Puerto Rican Independence movement. Carlos Alberto Torres served 30 years. Oscar Lopez Rivera has served 32 years and is still in jail. In both cases, the main charge was seditious conspiracy.

         replyreport
         1. 94

            wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Wikipedia: " He (Carlos Alberto Torres) was convicted and sentenced to 78 years in a U.S. federal prison for seditious conspiracy - conspiring to use force against the lawful authority of the United States over Puerto Rico.
            
            Black Panthers of 30 years ago were interested primarily in killing Whitey, and if it was a cop all the better.  There was little to no politics in the movement, just violence.
            
            As soon as a gun enters the picture, it becomes a crime of violence, not politics.  Political prisoners are held in jail for political beliefs and promotion of overthrowing the government, not for shooting up the countryside.
            
            Torres was convicted for conspiring to use force against lawful US authority, and the Black Panthers were much the same.

            replyreport
            1. 89

               IslandBitesposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               Not entirely true.

               replyreport
   4. 89

      IslandBitesposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      http://www.democracynow.org/2013/5/31/o … r_32_years

      replyreport
2. 65

   maxoxam41posted 10 years ago

   You won't answer my questions because they refer to common sense.

   replyreport
   1. 74

      Quilligrapherposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Please do not insult me with a post like this. You are wrong, Max. I do not answer your questions because they do not make any sense.
      
      If you choose to attack US policy, be my guest. However, state your accusations clearly and provide some verifiable facts to support your claims. Asking a bunch of questions that have no answers IS NOT proof of misdeeds. It is only proof that you have nothing, and know nothing, that supports anything you say.
      
      If you want to attack US policy, you do the research, you answer your own questions, and then you provide the facts for us to discuss.
      

      replyreport