Under Article 10 of the UCMJ, the accused can be confined before trial. There is no upper limit on how long, either. Though I believe rule 707 of the Manual for Courts-Martial says the "general" maximum is 120 days for what is considered a speedy trial.
Not saying what they're doing is right (or wrong), but it seems his incarceration is legal (for now).
Do they realize that the military can and will take lives? That simple things like your smoking habits can get people killed? That you give up all sorts of things when you put the uniform on?
Don't get me wrong -- I didn't like any of that. And I was in the infantry, which is much more about military discipline and foundational stuff. I think a lot of folks look at the military and think of guys living in dorms and doing jobs that involve pushing a lot of buttons. In that case, those folks begin to look a lot like anybody else going to work. So we expect them to have a similar work and legal environment as the rest of us.
Like I said, I'm not trying to pass judgment on Manning in this comment or try to figure out what the appropriate type of incarceration would be for him. I just find people's attitudes towards the military very -- weird.
Full stop. This isn't about whether the punishment for losing your rifle is excessive, this is a black and white issue. Punishment before trial == wrong. Torture == wrong. Both are against the constitution.
And I bet nobody even gets in trouble for this.
Scared people are scary. Really scary, when backed far enough into a corner.
Enemy combatants belong to non-state actors, and so no treaties or guidelines apply to them. Last I checked Al doesn't Al Qaeda and the rest of the cavers don't get representatives in the UN.
See perhaps most recently _Boumediene v. Bush_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush
Namely that these enemy combatants do have rights under the Constitution in this case the right to a habeas petition.
The other relevant historic case-law here is _Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yick_Wo_v._Hopkins "these provisions [the Constitution] are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction."
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml Article 29(3)
These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
<snip>
The guards at the confinement facility are professional. At no time have they tried to bully, harass, or embarrass PFC Manning. Given the nature of their job, however, they do not engage in conversation with PFC Manning.
</snip>
He gets to watch TV, write letters, and have visitors on the weekends. He is isolated, but his treatment and living conditions are a far cry from torture.
According to Mssrs Rumsfeld and Cheney people that where waterboarded for up to 200 times where not tortured. According to the definition of torture in the civilized world this sure as hell was and is torture.
It's not a stretch to argue that solitary confinement equates torture.
Second, lots of people (especially less educated kids), often don't realize what they're signing up for when then enroll in the military. They're often lied to by recruiters, and are brainwashed by their families and the culture around them, who worship the military.
Third, even if Manning had knowingly and willingly agreed to be tortured by the US government, that does not excuse the torture.
I guess the US military hasn't gotten the memo yet.
This discussion is sad because in the end, if this kid is found guilty of leaking those docs, found guilty of treason? Smh...whether it's right or wrong, his 'pre-trial torture' will be the least of his worries. And if he is found innocent? It's pretty doubtful anyone gets sued over his wrongful imprisonment, idk, I could be wrong...
Depending on whether you think rights are inherent and inalienable, there could also be a difference between which rights some courts rule you have and which rights you actually have.
The courts might rule and the military might claim you have no rights whatsoever, and they can torture you to death, or imprison you forever, without cause, whenever they feel like it.
Does that mean you have no right not to be tortured? Does it mean you have no right not to be imprisoned without being found guilty of a crime? Or does it mean such imprisonment and torture (even when legal, or when the US military claims its legal) is a violation of your rights?