Just by how Bradley Manning was treated and by the continued existence of Guantanamo bay's facility the United States has lost a large chunk of its voice the world over when they start talking about human rights.
How far the US Government will sink before they realize that every time they do something like this they are hurting their own interests is anybody's guess. Be it drone attacks that kill children as collateral damage (Oh, but we apologized) or torture dressed up as self protection it hardly matters.
If you want to criticize the world then you need to set an example, not by taking out your rage on others but by wondering what it is that you are doing wrong and then correcting that.
Slowly but surely every 'own goal' is reducing the United States' importance on the world stage. And that's a real pity because we really do need an entity that is a little larger than most that can serve as a role model for the rest. As it is the role model seems to be that might makes right and that if you deny your problems and your mistakes that you can get away with it. The rules apply to everybody but you.
The treatment of Manning and eventual treatment of Assange will be our generation's Vietnam - an active demonstration of our government's willingness to lie to and abuse us, a touchstone for all who are seeking a reason not to cooperate.
The treatment of Manning and eventual treatment of Assange will be our generation's Vietnam - an active demonstration of our government's willingness to lie to and abuse us, a touchstone for all who are seeking a reason not to cooperate.
It would certainly be nice if that was the case. However, it's much more likely the average American doesn't know (or care) about Manning, other than the occasional footnote on the 10 o'clock news, and in a year or two he will be forgotten.
Except we're not talking about policy, we're talking about this generation's Vietnam. The average American knows about Vietnam. The average American knows about 9/11. The average American does not know about Manning, nor is likely to in a year's time.
Waco and Ruby Ridge were also "active demonstration[s] of our government's willingness to lie to and abuse us, a touchstone for all who are seeking a reason not to cooperate."
Bradley Manning made an oath to serve as a faithful soldier and broke it. He received the same treatment any prisoner in this country does and I can find little wrong in what happened to him.
At Ruby Ridge, a man had his entire family shot to death by federal agents over a missed court date and an entrapment scheme, while at Waco, the federal government badgered a doomsday cult into killing themselves at the very least.
> He received the same treatment any prisoner in this country does and I can find little wrong in what happened to him.
It's your prerogative whether you "find little wrong" with the way any person is treated, but the bit about his treatment being the same as any other prisoner is pretty willfully obtuse.
The suicide watch he was placed on was a bum-standard procedure, believe it or not.
The judge in his trial has ruled that he was kept in prevention of suicide status far longer than was necessary, but they don't seem to have innovated any special procedures for Manning.
At the same time, it's not everyday that an intelligent soldier with mental issues and possible gender identity confusion on the most far-reaching modern case of deliberate information leakage comes into your brig. Manning's own lawyers admit that he joked about killing himself, and especially at first there was the real danger of being killed by one of the other prisoners. And the fallout of Manning being killed in prison would be extreme, to say the least.
Manning was not treated like a general prisoner, but at least part of that was because he wasn't just a random prisoner accused of a normal crime.
The interests of your government generally align with the actions of mine. Hence, the lack of disengagement between them - i.e. your government hasn't withdrawn it's ambassador in protest, frozen US assets held domestically, or imposed trade sanctions.
I'm not suggesting that this justifies anything, but we both live in NATO.
I think part of why that happens is because we get to vote 'en gros', instead of 'en detail'. Countries with more granular voting powers tend to do a lot better at such things (Switzerland for instance). As it is, winner takes all or coalition governments are capable of getting large blocks of people to vote against their own interests by lumping in a token bit of good with a boatload of bad as long as the emotional connection to the token bit of good (as perceived by the voter) is a strong one.
The metaphor I like is that once a gang of criminal thugs gains enough power and wealth, it can afford to start white washing its own reputation...
This is done by rewriting history. The idea that we have had wars about moral causes is 100% fals. The moral angle comes later once the victor gets the chance to tarnish his enemy forever in the history books.
How far the US Government will sink before they realize that every time they do something like this they are hurting their own interests is anybody's guess. Be it drone attacks that kill children as collateral damage (Oh, but we apologized) or torture dressed up as self protection it hardly matters.
If you want to criticize the world then you need to set an example, not by taking out your rage on others but by wondering what it is that you are doing wrong and then correcting that.
Slowly but surely every 'own goal' is reducing the United States' importance on the world stage. And that's a real pity because we really do need an entity that is a little larger than most that can serve as a role model for the rest. As it is the role model seems to be that might makes right and that if you deny your problems and your mistakes that you can get away with it. The rules apply to everybody but you.