Reality isn't what matters in this case. I have no idea if Manning is actually being mistreated. The point is to avoid the appearance of abuse to score PR points. This is an opportunity to take back some moral high-ground lost with gitmo and Abu Ghraib. There is minimal cost and zero risk is giving manning special red-carpet treatment and it will give us more credibility than actually solving problems of prisoner abuse.What you have is a guy who worked against his own country, being held in a military prison(which is where he belongs as military personnel), and people can't figure out why he is in solitary? Right or wrong, he would not survive 2 days in general population. Add in the suicide watch and, well, that pretty much explains things.
That doesn't matter. In the world of public opinion, since we have already abused prisoners on other occasions, the mere accusation is enough. While it might be distasteful to cater to fools, the costs are minimal and we need the boost to our image. We live in a world of advertising and television sound bytes and our foreign policy needs to reflect that.There is no moral ground being lost except to those who already assume it. There is zero evidence he is actually being mistreated.
It might be self evident because he's on suicide watch and a political prisoner imo.There is zero evidence he is actually being mistreated.
That is based on the false assumption that people's opinions cannot be swayed. Many of those people who think the U.S. is evil also thought Obama was greatest thing since sliced bread. It would satisfy their desire just as much to see Obama "changing" the treatment of prisoners as the U.S. being evil. What harm is there is giving Bradley particularly nice treatment in return for good PR?I don't think you understand. For those who assume the US is evil, or for those who see Manning and WikiLeaks as some kind of martyrs, they see what they expect to see here. For every one else, they see the truth, that under the circumstances he is clearly not being mistreated.