Not making commentary on Manning specifically, but what you just described isn't "cruel" in terms of "cruel and unusual punishment". Now, the means of imprisonment or acts taken to you while imprisoned may be cruel, but simply imprisoning someone for breaking the law (contempt of court, in this case) does not rise to the level of "cruel".

Unfair? Unnecessary? Unfitting of the wrong? Those are all things I don't know enough to really say or discuss in an educated manner.

I was responding to the question "How is it cruel" - I didn't mean to opine on the legal phrasing/interpretation of cruel and unusual punishment.

> How is admittedly imprisoning someone for "coercive" reasons not cruel? /I'll table the unusual bit.

Why would I assume you meant the colloquial "cruel" and not the legal "cruel" here? Perhaps you should edit to clarify if your intent was the former as opposed to the latter.

I don't know, why would I assume you mean the legal terminology. I don't assume that it's that when the phrase isn't used in full - I assumed the omission was intentional. Something can be cruel without being unreasonable, and something can be unreasonable without being cruel.

Perhaps you should also edit to clarify your intent.

> that grand juries have tended in the past to victimize those they call as witnesses.

This is the same line of reasoning Alex Jones uses to justify his conspiracies. "The government had Project Northwoods, why isn't [conspiracy] likely?!"

How does that apply to grand juries?