Yeah, and I'm really don't like the special treatment for "enemy combatants" as well. Does the right to life, liberty and happiness apply to all mankind or just to people the US government is not currently scared of?

> Does the right to life, liberty and happiness apply to all mankind or just to people the US government is not currently scared of?

Scared people are scary. Really scary, when backed far enough into a corner.

Are you asking if the American Constitution and the American Bill of Rights only applies to Americans?

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.

Actually, the US Constitution is much broader in terms of protecting individuals then I think you realize. The Constitution is specific when it intends to reserve rights only for citizens, otherwise it uses the word Persons.

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."

How we choose to act in the absence of treaties or guidelines says a lot more about us than it does about inalienable human rights.

Actually, at least the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does apply to them.

Unless the United Nations finds it inconvenient:

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.

He is not being tortured. Here is what his lawyer wrote that his typical day is: http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/2010/12/typical-day-...

<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.

That may be a matter of definition.

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.

His conditions are withering him physically and psychologically. He's not allowed to exercise whatsoever, or to communicate with anyone except on weekends. These conditions may not be direct torture, but they are most definitely a form of indirect torture, a claim which is supported by several psychologists. It's a form of punishment before trial, which is absolutely unconstitutional.

You're looking for an argument and a rant and that's not my intent. Nobody said anything about torture being okay.