I for one do not blame Obama in the least.
Because I actually agree with Danivon that the Prez delegates these things and he does not know every detail of every thing delegated. But I do find it actually incredibly funny, when these same things were said of Bush, the liberals cried foul, he is in charge, he needs to know, he needs to be responsible, etc etc.
Can't anyone else see the absolute humor here?

Hey, I didn't blame Bush
I don't blame Obama

Everyone else seems so biased and want to blame the other guy when it suits their position. Everyone is wearing blinders around here.

Tom - I don't blame Bush. Cheney and Rumsfeld, however, are a very different matter. They did explicitly alter policy to make torture more likely.

GMTom wrote:I for one do not blame Obama in the least.
Because I actually agree with Danivon that the Prez delegates these things and he does not know every detail of every thing delegated. .

Sorry, but you're just wrong. By the time Crowley has been fired for criticizing the treatment of Bradley, the President is clearly aware of enough detail to be accountable.

If it wasn't for the mounting political backlash, the treatment of Manning is pure evil genius.

Prison psychiatric expert Terry Kupers explains "The problem with the argument that Manning is being kept in long-term solitary confinement to prevent his suicide is that long-term solitary confinement causes suicide."

Neal Anderth wrote:If it wasn't for the mounting political backlash, the treatment of Manning is pure evil genius.

Prison psychiatric expert Terry Kupers explains "The problem with the argument that Manning is being kept in long-term solitary confinement to prevent his suicide is that long-term solitary confinement causes suicide."

Do you live in Cuba? Where is the political backlash? Other than in the far-left and far-right nutosphere?

Ah, but while I do not blame Barry for this, nor did I blame GWB for Abu Ghraib either
But those who want to give Obama a "pass" on this seem to be the ones not willing to do so for Bush
It's the same thing though.

Neal Anderth wrote:If it wasn't for the mounting political backlash, the treatment of Manning is pure evil genius.

Prison psychiatric expert Terry Kupers explains "The problem with the argument that Manning is being kept in long-term solitary confinement to prevent his suicide is that long-term solitary confinement causes suicide."

Btw, having read this piece, I can see the doctor's perspective. However, it is not only subjective it is also ignorant of the facts that cause "supermax" facilities to isolate prisoners (other than Manning): like the protection of other prisoners; interruption of criminal enterprises; discipline.

He speaks of the suicide rate being highest in solitaire. This is due to not only what he said, but also because cellmates will often prevent a suicide either directly or indirectly.

Still waiting for evidence that the President is acting illegally by keeping Manning in isolation. I know you don't like it, but is it illegal, unethical, or immoral? On what basis?

Hint: "because Neal says so" or because Leftists or anarchists say so is not a legitimate reason.

GMTom wrote:Ah, but while I do not blame Barry for this, nor did I blame GWB for Abu Ghraib either
But those who want to give Obama a "pass" on this seem to be the ones not willing to do so for Bush
It's the same thing though.

We still disagree. For it to be the same, Bush would have had to have known about Abu Ghraib and allowed it to continue. He didn't. Obama has.

The question is "Why?"

OK, so what was the oath taken?

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Please point out how treason supports this oath.

I just re-read the entire Constitution and in no way is he doing anything to defend or support it. The Constitution spells out the rights of US Citizens and how the government will function, his supporting the Constitution sounds so noble but in reality he did no such thing.
He did however disobey the orders of the President so the comment is a complete nonsensical thing to say, bringing it up here is just as pointless. maybe you can point to a morally superior position, maybe doing what America stands for? All sorts of other reasons, but defending the Constitution? not a chance.

I didn't make the comment. I'm not an advocate of oaths.

Are you saying that because he made an oath, and because scripture says not to, you should disregard one's oath? Would that not be compounding one's "sins"?

Proverbs 22:20-21
20 Have I not written thirty sayings for you,
sayings of counsel and knowledge,
21 teaching you to be honest and to speak the truth,
so that you bring back truthful reports
to those you serve?

First, you did not make the claim but in making your posting (and from other things you have said) you sure sound like you are trying to take this position. Either way it was flat out wrong, "noble" sounding but wrong.

Secondly
Grab one bible passage and ignore all others:
http://vftonline.org/TestOath/06bible.htm

Oaths are not forbidden and actually insisted upon

Besides, Manning took the oath
He could have not done so and not enlisted into the armed services. He took the oath voluntarily and is bound by it.
...and if you are not an advocate of oaths, why bring it up at all?

Besides, Manning took the oath

..to support and defend the constitution ....
Maybe Manning had decided that the government had become tyrannical and he was revolting against it? Maybe he'd unilaterally decided that he was defending his country against unconstitutional activity by the government?

"A little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical...It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."

Having taken that oath (several times!), I can say what is says. The picking and choosing that RickyP has done is only a part of the oath. Do you think Private Manning did the following?:

that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Did he follow the UCMJ? (hint: NO!)
Did he obey the orders of those above him? (hint: again NO!
Did he follow the orders of the President? This one I can't answer. Is there some information that the President authorized this RickyP?
Your Constitutional argument is weak. Should he have taken up arms to prove his point. Perhaps that is what Nidal Hasan did? Was he just exercising his Constitutional rights?