Tweet
A little more than a year ago, Pfc. Bradley Manning was arrested for allegedly leaking classified information, specifically the “Collateral Murder” video that showed the slaying of two Reuters journalists by the US military forces. He was held in Baghdad, shipped to Kuwait, held in isolation away from any sort of media attention and then transferred to Quantico Marine brig in Virginia, where he suffered inhumane treatment as the military subjected him to harsh conditions hoping he would crack and comply with interrogation.
Ann Clwyd in the UK House of Commons, former State Department spokesperson PJ Crowley, David House, Amnesty International, the Bradley Manning Support Network and numerous other supporters from around the world including over 500,000 individuals who signed a virtual Avaaz petition to President Barack Obama, Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates all contributed to the attention that eventually led to Manning being transferred to Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas, where he now is given much better treatment.
To discuss Manning and the one year anniversary of his arrest, I had Kevin Zeese, a Bradley Manning Support Network Steering Committee member, come on the weekly podcast I independently produce called “This Week in WikiLeaks.” The show looks at stories related to WikiLeaks from the past week and offers people a way to stay informed on the latest news related to all things WikiLeaks especially news that involves Cablegate, Bradley Manning, the Grand Jury investigation into WikiLeaks, transparency, secrecy, whistleblowing, etc.
[*To listen to the show, go here and click play on the embedded player. Or, go to CMN News and click "download" or "listen." It will appear at the top of the page or in the list.]
In the past week, there were two documentaries (or films) that went public, which portrayed Bradley Manning. One was the PBS FRONTLINE documentary (which I had much to say about and even went on RT’s “The Alyona Show” to discuss). Another was an investigative short film put together by The Guardian.
I asked Zeese to give his thoughts on those documentaries.
What I find interesting, and this starts to come out in the Guardian version, is that some of his colleagues who allegedly bullied [Manning] to the point of break down…a lot of these guys that were in the military just sat around and watched videos of Americans killing civilians. And they’re the ones making him out to be crazy. To me, there is something seriously wrong with the American military if you have people who are holding up mutilated bodies, showing trophies from mutilated bodies and you have people taking pleasure on Abu Ghraib, torturing other humans. There’s something seriously sick in the military that is being shown by these kinds of actions and Manning’s colleagues just sitting around and watching videos of death and destruction, US military killing civilians, very weird. And, they point to Manning being the sick one.
I asked Zeese to comment on how the notion that Manning was motivated by moral values or social justice to leak the information is completely overlooked in the recently produced films:
The social justice aspect of this is the dominant aspect. And even the way he was treated as a gay man in the military is part of that social justice question to me. That makes some sensible connection to me. But, the war crimes that were going on in Iraq and Afghanistan at the time of this release and prior to this release were really widespread. We only got the tip of the iceberg with Abu Ghraib. There were multiple black prison sites. There were kill teams going out assassinating and targeting people. The Afghanistan—Thousands of pictures. Der Spiegel has 4,000 photos of Americans posing with dead bodies. So, we’re dealing with a widespread situation of war crimes that’s not being reported.
Zeese spoke to how Manning’s case fits into the war on whistleblowing saying:
There’s definitely a war on whistleblowing going on and the reason there’s a war is because every day the people who run the empire know they’re committing crimes. And, they know that their subordinates see it. They know that with cell phones and tape recorders and tweeting and Facebook and discs—there’s so many ways now to capture the violations of law—that they need to have a war on whistleblowing and they need to make an example of Bradley Manning to try and stop it.
Zeese finds the case of Bradley Manning, when compared to his history of work defending people as a criminal defense lawyer, ahs been an interesting one:
This case has been so backwards every step of the way. The fact that he was punished the way he was while in detention for the last year of solitary confinement is just one example. The fact that he’s been pronounced guilty by the Commander-in-Chief before he’s even been formally charged in the Article 13 hearing [is another example].
The Manning Support Network’s focus will now be on ensuring his trial is not secret. They believe the public has a right to decide for themselves based on evidence presented whether he is guilty or not, as the trial unfolds.
An Article 13 pre-trial hearing will take place mid-summer. In December, the trial is likely to begin.
A major rally will take place on June 4th at Ft. Leavenworth and will be the first major support rally held since he was transferred from Quantico.
Zeese concludes, the people of this country and the world have the “rest of this year to save Bradley Manning.”
Update 1
Allow me to draw attention to this fairly reactionary comment that appears in the comments thread of this post. It isn’t the entire comment but a particular section (though the entire comment is pretty inflammatory):
…I find it upsetting that Manning is gay and did this. The gays were hunted out of the military seriously starting in the early 1940s, hunted out of government in that same time by McCarthy, and precluded from having a security clearance as well by being potentially “unstable,” a threat to national security, and a threat to others. We won our rights to clearance and government work, and are winning against DADT-but thanks Manning for helping set the gay rights back on that…
The misinformation and disinformation being propagated in the media is working.
103 Comments
Thanks Kevin.
No problem — There is joy in the struggle.
Thank you, Kevin, for the excellent synopsis and reminder of the June 4 date to support Bradley Manning with the rally in Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas.
Out of curiosity, has Bradley Manning ever admitted leaking these cables, aside from on the chat log? Based on the Guardian’s report, security was so slack at FOB Hammer it could have been you or I posing as Manning, which is why I ask.
I’m thoroughly convinced he’s just a scapegoat in the USG’s attempt to take down Wikileaks.
Kevin, remember Sacco & Vanzetti?
http://writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/88/sacvan.html
I remember seeing pictures and film of how the left (when the left in this country were at their zenith) filled the streets to save these two men yet they were still murdered by the state anyway!
We who claim to be the new left are but a fraction of what they were (Chris Hedges, “Death of the Liberal class”); I don’t see this brave young man having much of a chance.
At some point the full political force of the left must be applied to Mr. Obama to get the hero Manning out of prison and put the crew of Crazy Horse 18 in.
Ever wonder why a champion for gay rights like Rachel Maddow says very little about Manning?
WikiLeaks
@wikileaks
Statement: Washington Post had Collateral murder video for over a year but DID NOT RELEASE IT it to the public.
1 hour ago via web
Oh fucking he’ll. *This* is the press we’re talking about.
NO, she’s part of the ‘veal pen’.
Because he’s not gay, therefore Rachel doesn’t give a flying F***”?
I also recommend the terrific material up at David Swanson’s blog. In particular, you might note the shocking story at time point 8:37 – 9:21: “Lila Garrett and David Swanson on Bradley Manning and Activist Strategy” (Los Angeles, May 2, 2011). Now go out and tell everybody.
Bradley Manning is gay.
Looking around for this, do you have a link?
Tangential– On now with discussion of “Guantanamo North” in Kingston, Canada:
2011-05-29 Prism Magazine: Livestream discussion on the Canadian and American “No-Fly Lists”
Submitted by Heather Marsh on Sun, 05/29/2011 – 07:36
Still, good of you to link to this. What’s being said here is compelling. And, this is just another aspect of US international relations that WikiLeaks has been helping to shine a light on. The Canada cables have some tremendous material on CSIS.
I consider this must-see material about what’s really going on in the legal system of Canada and how the US plays a role in that.
Notice parallels to the case of Mohamed Osman Mohamud in Portland, OR. More from Empty Wheel here.
Unfortunately, no. It was a retweet of a wikileaks tweet from David House @lockean, but there was no link. Don’t know how to link to a tweet.
Lead by War Criminal-in-chief, Osama Assassin Obummer!
Manning is suspected of leaking 250 000 diplomatic cables. If he is found guilty of that crime he should be sentenced and punished.
It’s trivially obvious that Manning – if guilty – couldn’t possibly have read all those 250 000 documents. He could not have been in position to judge if any of those documents was gonna hurt US interests or put lives at risk.
Having a cute smile and being a gay man in the military under DADT is no excuse for commiting crimes.
Assumes facts not in evidence, specifically the assertions about the motivations of the military personel at Quantico.
If a country doesn’t do anything wrong, then there is nothing that needs to remain secret. The embarrassment caused by Manning and Wikileaks are the fault of our own government. Too bad most people are too stupid to realize this.
You know, if I had a dime for every gay military man that couldn’t take the stress of being gay in the military and decided to handle their embarrassment and rage from being gay by leaking classified information in the name of truth and transparency…
I think a majority outside the United States gets it.
It doesn’t matter if Manning’s guilty or innocent of whatever charges he’s tried on, Obama ownership of his pre-trial treatment should make it IMPOSSIBLE for any ideological Democrat to vote for him.
There’s in fact afaik not one single country in history that hasnt kept state secrets.
But I guess we should listen to Bibi Netanyahu then and let Jonathan Pollard out of jail. After all he was only looking out for our best interests when he peddled classified information to Israel.
Or should the law work slightly different when we sympathize with the (alleged) crime and criminal?
Yes, exactly. Most people with a working moral compass would see that Mannings homosexuality and the injustice of DADT are irrelevant to the issue of whether Manning is guilty or innocent of the crime he’s being suspected of commiting, and whether he should be punished.
And yet here’s Kevin Gosztola:
Manning is no different than any guy suspected of spying. He should be treated no differently, he should be tried no differently, he should receive no special favors. He should have no fan club.
Have you seen this? ‘The “Bradley Manning Exception to the Bill of Rights” Devastates the Credibility of the Military Justice System‘ (Apr. 25, 2011)
It doesnt matter if Obama is guilty or innocent of being responsible for Mannongs (alleged) mistreatment either, I presume? True democrats are still only the democrats that do what you want them to and vote republican?
What is Manning charged with?
If you’re referring to the camera phone video of the President making an off the cuff remark in a private conversation at a fundraiser – yes I’ve seen it and discussed it previously here at FDL.
It’s a complete non-issue which is why it wasn’t widely reported at the time and still only peddled by Manning injustice fanatics.
It’s one thing if the President had proclaimed Manning guilty in a speech, in a presser or some other context where he was acting in official capacity as CiC. As it stands it’s nothing more than a stupid gotcha about the president forgeting to add the word “alledgedly” when he got slightly pissed at yet one more annoying Manning fanatic.
From Wikipedia:
Furthermore:
That’s a lie. It was widely reported. Do a simple Google search.
We aren’t just kooks here. Amnesty International said he experienced “abusive” treatment. So did the United Nations Anti-Torture Office. And, it must have been inhumane on some level cause former State Dept spokesperson PJ Crowley stuck his neck out and got forced out of his job over what was going on.
The article I posted is from the Huffington Post which reaches an international audience including the Bradley Manning case sparks UN criticism of US governmentJuan Mendez, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture Talks About Bradley Manning (video; RT.Com, Apr. 24, 2011) and Amnesty International. Also, when in public the President is in his official capacity and as Commander-in-Chief when he made that statement. He is bound by Article 37 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
{ Mods can you fix the link in my comment for clarity? Then you can delete this request as well. Thank you in advance! :-) }
Manning was incarcerated before being charged and is still waiting for trial.
Further (my bold):
But, let’s take a look at this WikiLeaks video for just one second here. The video was released on April 5th of 2010. However, the entire incident was written about in a book by David Finkel called The Good Soldiers. So, they’re stating that this was classified, but it was already released back in 2009 through a book so how is it classified if it’s already for released? I mean, word for word this video is described in the book The Good Soldiers so yet we’re going to charge Bradley Manning for releasing classified information.
Let’s have a look then at Amnesty’s complaints:
The cell was of course not built specifically for Manning but was in fact the same cell that many other prisoners at Quantico resided in. But we’re not raising bl–dy hell about those poor souls are we? One hour exercise a day is par for the course for a maximum security prisoner.
He only had a blanket, that obv amounts to torture.
Suicide risk is obv a matter of judgement.
Appear to be using all available [legal] means to punish him while in detention. Obv also a matter of judgement.
Once again comes down to second guessing assessments of the personel at Quantico.
Implies that a history of violence or disciplinary offences are the only legitimate grounds for classing a detainee as “maximum custody”. Ignores the possibility that Manning was classed that way because of the crime he was suspected of commiting and the possibility that he was at risk of violence at the hands of other prisoners.
Implies that POI could not be warranted on the grounds of Manning being at risk of violence at the hands of other prisoners.
Let me help you.
1. The point being made in that quoted excerpt is that Bradley Manning thought about social and political issues. He did, prior to the military and while in the military, engage in some sort of activism. This is important to accept otherwise you cannot believe he would blow the whistle and release documents (allegedly) to WikiLeaks because he was compelled by social justice.
2. Actually, Manning is different. He wasn’t spying. Spies don’t release information to an organization like WikiLeaks for the world to see. They sell the material or find some way to make profit. He did none of that.
Did Iran or North Korea get the material to use against America? No.
No special favors? No fan club? I haven’t discussed this with you, but what bothers you so much? What happens to you in your life and your world if he is innocent and his “crime” goes unpunished? What’s it to you that people consider him a hero?
The United Nations launched a probe into the treatment of Manning and at one time complained about not being given enough access. AFAIK they haven’t issued any findings as of yet, but if you have more up to date info – feel free to share…
Why was Manning moved to Ft. Leavenworth where he is receiving significantly different conditions and treatment?
Being reported by HuffPo is hardly being widely reported. Anyway, it doesn’t change the fact that failing to add a qualifier in an off the cuff remark in a private conversation in a semi-public context is not prejudging a case. It’s just pursuing an inane gotcha and an absurd parsing of words. IOW, It’s stock conspiracy fluff. If it wasnt, Mannings legal council would get Manning off of it, which wont happen and they wont in fact even try because they know it’s ridiculous.
Note that there’s nothing in your link supporting the UN actually alledging mistreatment of Manning.
Because the Obama admin cares about public relations and a very vocal interest group managed to achieve preferential treatment for Manning by shouting very loudly?
Wikipedia:
Since Keith left, her show has moved to the center. I now only watch some selected clips of interest from her web site, very few these days.
Sherwood, answer my questions, please.
The point being made was also that him being a homosexual in a time of DADT was somehow related to the crime he was alledged of. Specifically:
“And even the way he was treated as a gay man in the military is part of that social justice question to me.”
What does that mean Kevin, mind parsing that one for me?
The whistleblower aspect of his (alledged) actions does indeed earn him some sympathy and a certain measure of gratitude from me. But the fact that he is alledged to have leaked over half a million documents sadly convinces me that a whistleblowing defence is not credible in this case.
So by analogy, he earns the same gratitude as a black man blowing up Strom Thurmond and a couple of innocent bystanders would. Doing the world a favor – but still having earned hard time behind bars.
It’s not credible to pretend that Manning consumed those hundreds of thousands of documents and decided that they to the best of his judgement were of public interest. For the same reason it’s trivially obvious that the leaker took no care to make sure that national security or the security of individuals were not put at risk.
Selling a document to Mossad or Al Qaeda for money on the one hand and putting it on the internet on the other both results in the document ending up in the hands of Al Qaeda or Mossad. The only difference is that in the latter case the document ends up in the hands of anyone with internet access. The public is informed – yes – but anyone with a computer – benevolent or malevolent – is informed as well.
How do you figure this? They got no internet access in Iran and North Korea?
It matters to me thusly:
1) A large part of the progressive movement embarrassing and discrediting itself by applying an inconsistent and selfserving standard towards the rule of law where we demand preferential treatment for people we sympathize more with for some reason. Soon the shoe will be on the other foot, and it will come back to haunt us.
2) Crying wolf or in this case “torture and miscarriage of justice” on shaky grounds takes away credibility from such accusations in the future. I’d preferred e.g. GG kept his cred so he could better do a job the next time our government think it’s a good idea to waterboard someone 167 times. Him having lowered the bar for “torture” to someone not having sheets in their bed hurts the credibility of human rights proponents. Us having lowered the bar for “innocent” to being someone we like doing stuff we approve of will hurt our interests in the exact same way. If we have a principled interest in civil rights that is, and an interest in applying them fairly.
Notice that Wired.Com didn’t provide the source material they said they had access to? Why not? Notice that Finkel is purposely vague s.t. he could be saying that he had access to “Collateral Damage” and it was presented to him as a unclassified source? Otherwise I find it *amazing* that Finkle could come up with text he produced in his book from his embedding in Iraq that reads *exactly* like a transcript of “Collateral Damage.”
Well I just did I think, just took me some time typing. See above.
We obviously have someone here on the thread who believes in punishment first, trial second. In spite of the UCMJ’s specific and very succinct prohibition against such treatment prior to trial.
We also have someone on the thread who doesn’t understand the “torture” implications of solitary confinement, stripping a prisoner (of clothing, personal belongings, etc) to dehumanize him, the psychological ramifications of sleep deprivation (since the POI “checks” occurred all night long and the lights were on all night long as well) and that this so-called POI treatment is actually a very refined program of psy-ops designed to break down personality barriers and make a person malleable to suggestion and to interrogation.
The claims of this person (and others) that Bradley Manning is/was crazy belies the fact that he apparently has stood up very well under these abusive practices and has managed to retain his sense of humor (a sarcastic comment is what earned him the being stripped naked for inspection ritual – extra-judicial punishment?!?) and while a marked deterioration in his demeanor is apparent to David House and to Mr. Bradley’s attorney – Manning has come through all of this in pretty good shape considering.
The person on this thread who is so convinced of Bradley Manning’s guilt obviously has not read Marcy’s meticulously written posts containing the chat logs that show the overlaps and contradictory portions – indicating that they may have been fabricated or tampered with. The person on this thread also puts far too much credence in an actual “crazy” – one Adrian Lamo who actually did spend some time in a mental institution. And the person on this thread also has not apparently been keeping up with the latest investigations on what purports to be the “secure” status of the SIPRNet stations at the base where Bradley Manning worked (as well as at other bases throughout the military establishment) where passwords were written on sticky notes and stuck on the computers, and access was as simple as that. Even officials at the Pentagon have admitted that as many as a million individuals may have had access to that information and if Adrian Lamo and his edited chat logs are the only evidence against Manning – well his attorney should have no trouble showing reasonable doubt that Manning is the guilty party. If, that is, he actually gets a real and fair trial.
And the jury is still out on that one. No pun intended at all.
Ah give me a break. Notice how the that bullet couldnt have possibly moved through the air that way. Notice how JFKs head went back and to the left, back and to the left.
How does your comment pertain to the subject of Manning?
Bullshit. You obviously cant handle not everyone going: “me too! you’re exactly right!”. I believe that accusations of unlawful punishment need to be supported by proof just as any future conviction of Manning needs to be supported by proof.
Solitary confinement always equals torture? Note that Manning could talk to other prisoners while confined to his cell. He also had access to television from his cell. He was allowed a book.
Asserts intent to dehumanize, without having shown it to be warranted.
Not correct. They checked him every five minutes but he was woken only if his head was not visible. That’s not the same thing as sleep deprivation.
News to me. Got a cite?
Because you say so?
That’s a bald faced lie – if “this person” refers to me, as I assume it does. I’ve never said Bradley Manning is/was crazy. Show where or retract.
In fact I havent heard anyone claiming that Manning is crazy. So your whole point is moot.
I have not prejudged Mannings guilt any more than Kevin Gosztola has in this thread. In fact, I’ve prejudged his guilt less than Kevin.
Anyhow Marcy Wheeler’s parcing of chat logs is likely to be on par with the grassy knoll, WT7 and other cases when concerned citizens go about proving the various devious conspiracies of “the man”. What then is Marcy’s theory of why the Gubmint wants to frame an innocent soldier?
You’re talking about the section I quoted verbatim from wikipedia? And it’s of course in fact perfectly acceptable to argue by Ad Hominem accusations of “crazyness” as long as it’s done to discredit information that hurts Bradley Manning’s case.
Yes, this will indeed be considered at his trial. I have faith in that process, you for some reason don’t. Manning has council to look out for his interests, he doesnt need a dedicated mob of conspiracy theorists acting as a special interest group. That’s not how law is supposed to be carried out.
A google search on “Obama says Manning broke the law” (without quotation marks) yields huffpo and politico as the only outlets that could plausible said to be of note.
Neither NYtimes nor Wpost yields hits….
Kevin, answer my questions, please.
It pertains to your comment in this way: I would prefer you spelling out your theory of what that all means.
Forget the sophistry for a moment Jessie Lee (if I recall correctly). Have you hesitated long enough to consider what in the entire world is so important to you that you would risk so much as Manning did?
No don’t think so. Are you suggesting that I’m an undercover female AV star (NSFW link) trolling FDL? Amusing, but incorrect.
I think the fact that Manning (if guilty) leaked >500 000 documents should give pause to anyone thinking that it can be claimed that what he did was wholly worthy of praise and nothing else. It’s self evident that he had no idea exactly what was in all of those documents and who it could help or hurt.
Still, I’ve expressed in this thread and elsewhere both a measure of sympathy and gratitude towards Manning. My argument is that we can’t conflate the issue of whether we can find some measure of good comming out of what Manning did with whether it’s a crime or not and whether he’s guilty or not and whether he should be punished or not. Those are different issues and should be kept as such. Failing to do so opens up a whole can of worms where the left has their cause celebres where people and causes we like get to be above the law and the right gets to do exactly the same.
1-as an ex-Marine who did some time in the Brig, Manning’s ” treatment” is fairly SOP and standard. In all reality he is/was being treated exactly like every other high crime accused mentally unstable inmate.
2-Max Cutody is how all incoming detainees are classified. That determination is not just about an inmates propensity to violence, but also a factor of the expectation of time they will be sentenced, escape risk factor, and need for them to be observed/handled.
3-Manning is small, weak and due to the media publicly gay, with a history of being bullied. General population would immediately open him to ridicule, further bullying, and yes physical attack due to both his orientation and the fact that even though they themselves are inmates as well, many people would take personal offense to him doing something that potentially helped the enemy-his fellow inmates are military personel only who may still have some patriotism, if not experienced losses due to the current wars. And want revenge.
4-A large aspect of confusion I get with his case is: did he use his passwords to get at the data using his clearance, or did he not have access and use the freely available passwords, or did he have access and use another log in to hide his actions. That would be very telling.
5-I find it upsetting that Manning is gay and did this. The gays were hunted out of the military seriously starting in the early 1940s, hunted out of government in that same time by McCarthy, and precluded from having a security clearance as well by being potentially “unstable,” a threat to national security, and a threat to others. We won our rights to clearance and government work, and are winning against DADT-but thanks Manning for helping set the gay rights back on that.
6-Manning is in detention. Get this, he is actually still getting his military pay. Yep the 1st and 15th every month he still gets his direct deposit.
I found the Guardian documentary to be particularly informative. He’s a seriously messed-up kid in ways that straights cannot possibly understand, in that they ALL (“Liberal as well as Conservative) consider gayness to be a “ifestyle choice.” It’s very doubtful that he distributed this information out of the goddness of his little heart. What’s especially galling to the military is the fact that this information was so widely available and you didn’t have to be a skilled hacker like Manning to find it.
Even if he were released from prison to orrow and let go from the military entirely this kid is as good as dead. He’s been hanging onto a shard of self for years. Now there’s next to nothing left of him.
For the record, this is what Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers has to say:
[Link]
Ok. It’s not perfectly obvious to me what you’re trying to say here, or even what Ellsberg was trying to say – given that I can’t find the source for that using google and it would be nice to read his argument in it’s entirety.
However, as quoted above from Wikipedia, Manning is being charged under the UCMJ with violations of UCMJ Articles 92 and 134 an “additional 22 charges”. Whether those charges are frivolous will eventually be tried by professionals, and Manning will have representation to argue his case including if the legal situation is indeed “murky, controversial, uncertain”.
Ellsberg: “It’s very far from clear that any law was broken or should have been broken, that there should be such a law”
This is pretty disingenious right there. Obviously there’s the question of whether any law was broken.
Then there may be opinions on whether there should even be such a law.
Those two issues are completely unrelated unless we think it makes sense that i should go free from murder if I don’t agree that there should be a law against murdering people.
What Ellsberg’s point is about if the law “should have been broken” eludes me. Maybe it makes sense in context?
from blackfive.net: “Posted By Uncle Jimbo • [May 24, 2011]”
“This is just freakin’ rich.
The White House has named Jesse Lee to a new position within its communications department titled Director of Progressive Media & Online Response. According to The Huffington Post, Lee will essentially be responsible for building up Obama’s online presence as he prepares for his reelection bid, and squashing any negative stories:
The post is a new one for this White House. … And it signals that the White House will be adopting a more aggressive defense of the president and his policies as his re-election campaign gears up.
If you’re going to post something online about Obama that isn’t true, Lee is going to be the one to handle you. Considering that Lee’s first tweet about his new position included a picture of The Terminator, we suggest you watch what you say OR BE DESTROYED.
Dear Jesse,
I think we will be getting to know each other quite well as your boss is such a complete Cakeboy that I barely have time to catalogue his pitiful, politically-driven, narcissitic behavior. But I do my best. I actually live just across the river from you in lovely Alexandria VA, so if you want to grab a cup of coffee we can discuss the Sisyphean task you have taken on. You can catch up with my previous work detailing the many faults, weaknesses and spineless leading from the rear of the Ditherer in Chief here.
2008 2009 2010 2011
The first thing to get out of the way is the idea that people need to lie about Barry. Quite frankly his record stands sadly for itself. I only point out his own lies, deceptions, flip flops and panders. Oh and they are legion, trust me. Dude, you are going to wish you had an easy job, like spokesperson for Blackwater or Ombudsman for the NY Times. … Call me, let’s chat.”
It makes sense out of context. But, in any case, I provided a link. Click on it and hear the .mp3 of what he said for yourself.
Ellsberg is drawing from his experience as a whistleblower to say that he doesn’t think Manning broke a law. The constitutionality of what Manning did (allegedly) is not settled. Jesselyn Radack of the Government Accountability Project even says his (alleged) actions should be protected under the Military Whistleblowers Protection Act because he didn’t “leak” information but blew the whistle–an important distinction.
me: “Have you hesitated long enough to consider what in the entire world is so important to you that you would risk so much as Manning did?”
Jessie: “I think the fact that Manning (if guilty) leaked >500,000 documents should give pause to anyone thinking that it can be claimed that what he did was wholly worthy of praise and nothing else.”
HUH? Did I suggest what (Manning) did was “worthy of praise”? Did you answer my simple question?
Take note: Taking the low road opportunity to flash porn on FDL (an unparalleled source of info. to the Progressive community) pretty much typifies how this Administration deals with the supporters its turned on, doesn’t it?
Sherwood (Jessie Lee): “Obviously there’s the question of whether any law was broken.”
It couldn’t have been too obvious to Obama, who went out of his way to pronounce Manning GUILTY, could it? You people sound sickeningly like The Bushies WE elected you to replace.
Oh my freaking God, not again with the Cass Sunstein conspiracy sh-t. Look buddy:
1) Why would Obama publicly appoint Jesse Lee with the explicit job designation to handle Progressive/Liberal outreach only to send him on a secret concern trolling mission on FDL? That doesn’t make sense. If Obama was paying someone to secretely sell his agenda you could be pretty sure that you never heard the guys name. Occam’s razor, learn to use it.
2) It might surprise you to know that there are in fact many liberals/progressives that like Obama. Me being one of them. I think it’s a shame that there’s a lot of confused sentiments and flat out falsehoods flying around out there. The Manning case being one such topic where there’s an abundance of opinions, but a scarcity of facts. This very thread makes that pretty clear I think.
3) You’re way off down the rabbit hole my friend. You should get out more.
I assumed that was what you were getting at, but maybe I was wrong.
Well I’m not sure if I would call that a “simple” question. And I really took it more as a rethorical question. But fine, I’ll have another go and we’ll se where this ends up… Why do people risk life in prison or capital punishment? What could make me risk life in prison or capital punishment?
1) Not caring about whether I live or die or what happens to me.
2) Expecting not to get caught.
3) (Hopefully) doing it on principle for a higher cause; E.g. killing Adolf Hitler and such.
4) Maybe a woman if she really got me wrapped around her finger.
5) A boatload of cash.
To “flash porn” is a completely novel and fresh metaphor that I fail to have a clue what it means. But it sounds intriguing. Please elaborate..
Also: you’re full out paranoid dude. Get back on your meds.
The crazy probably relates to some of my comments on EW’s SPIRNet thread. I stated my belief that Manning needed to be at least little bit crazy to challenge the USG by allegedly leaking.
Ok, i missed the link. I’ll try to listen to it and get back re: Ellsberg.
In the meantime I think that what’s damaging to a “whistleblower” defence is the sheer volume of documents that Manning leaked – over half a million. We can’t plausibly claim that Manning reviewed them all and made a measured judgement about whether every single on of them was stuff that the public had the right to know. Ellsberg himself – in contrast – was familiar with the contents of the pentagon papers.
Under the MWPA, in my understanding, the leak would have to conform with:
It strains credulity to assume that this was plausibly the case for each of the over half a million documents leaked.
I’ve already adressed the video from the fundraiser, here. You’re free to read that and tell me your objections, if you like.
And just to add that “alledgedly” is implied when I write e.g. “Manning leaked”..
Listen to the clip. The idea that “the volume of documents” makes a whistleblower defense hard to make is raised.
If anyone else is interested, there is a link to wiki downthread that has more details about the Post not releasing Collateral Murder.
The POTUS was using the bully pulpit to run for office, solicit donations and violated Article 37 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice as we know from videotape (YouTube.Com, Apr. 21, 2011) footage.
As for “widely reported,” we know that folks in Iran read the Huffington Post, including this article with video (Apr. 21, 2011), given the following (PressTV.Com [Tehran], Apr. 22, 2011):
You’ll notice that when Iranian press refers to Obama, they said “President Barack Obama’s speech at a fundraiser for the Democratic National Committee” which denotes they recognize him acting in his official capacities as POTUS.
Further, Antonio Santiago Juárez of México wrote in De nuevo Antígona. La voz tras el soldado Manning published in Spain by El Pais on May 10, 2011:
Google Translate provides a serviceable translation of the above:
So I would describe these as evidence of international reporting instead of “widely reported.”
Last, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture was not able to make a determination because he was blocked access to Manning by the USG as discussed in the linked video from RT.Com.
“In the meantime I think that what’s damaging to a “whistleblower” defence is the sheer volume of documents that Manning leaked – over half a million. We can’t plausibly claim that Manning reviewed them all and made a measured judgement about whether every single on of them was stuff that the public had the right to know.”
This is the second time you mention this “as if” this is somehow proof that what Manning did was NOT whistleblowing. The amount of data released would be whatever is needed to prove wrongdoing. It could be huge volumes of information. The amount of data released is absolutely irrelevant. What is at question is, did Manning do it. And if he did was he releasing it because the US engaged in violations of it’s own constitution? Was he attempting to bring light to a wrong doing. Here’s the deal, if you are going to make it your “right” to kill other human beings you damn well better do it with some semblance of law behind you. If that “structure” is not sound, we are all doomed including every soldier enlisted.
Whistle blowing should be protected. There is no more serious “job” that the one that determines that it’s okay to take human life for the sake of an outcome. I can think of no situation where whistle blowers need to be protected more vigorously. NONE.
You have questions?
She would lose her job if she defended Manning. Duh.
I have a different opinion. I think Manning should be set free and YOU should be punished.
This is a rebuttal to your providing this as evidence. You were unable to make a counter-rebuttal with any citation of facts.
You are completely and totally WRONG. Aren’t you embarrassed?
Yo. Sherwood. Manning is my friend. You are my enemy. Another 100 paragraphs of your blather won’t change that.
@mzchief
The use of the phrase “bully pulpit” is incredibly disingenious given that it was an off the cuff remark in a private conversation. Furthermore the guy Obama was talking to was in fact one of several Manning protesters that ambushed the President, singing a Manning song, etc. He forgot to add the qualifier “alledgedly”, thats all.
Furthermore, when Nixon mispoke about Charles Manson in a similar way but much more damaging way – at an actual presser inside the very corthouse where Manson was at that very moment being tried, and using the very words “here was a man who was guilty of murder” – it didn’t result in a mistrial or the court finding Nixon had been trying to influence the court. And the case for Nixon doing it was ten times stronger than the case against Obama, imho.
You are free to show how the presidents remark qualifies under Article 37. Knock yourself out. But keep in mind that Manning has legal representation and nothing’s stopping them from arguing that the President violated Article 37. Did you hear anything about them planning to do so?
If it wasn’t reported by nytimes, wpost and network news, do you think they considered it a big controversy where the President openly violated UCMJ?
You think some guy at Iranian pravda takes great care or even has a clue about the subtleties of the presidents appearances in Washington D.C.? If writing about a rumour of what Barack told Michelle at dinner last night Iranian press would then call him Mr Barrack Hussein Obama? You’re freaking hilarious. And terminally confused. There’s a guy sitting in Teheran reading HuffPo doing summary that probably knows jack shit about washington. You don’t need a journalist to see that it was an informal remark – you only have to watch the bleeding video.
You know, I’m about to give up on you man. It wasn’t widely reported in the U.S. It wasn’t a big controversy in the U.S. outside of the small but vocal group of Manning afficionados. That’s a clear indication that Big Media had a look at it and they didnt consider it a story. Not even FoxNews made a big deal out of it and rest assured were there a strong case that Obama violated the UMCJ they’d be headlining that video for weeks.
But why don’t you just wait and see. See if Manning’s lawyer brings the video up in court. I’ll bet you 50 bucks he doesnt.
It’s a non-issue, a silly gotcha over a mistake that pretty much every single poster in this thread has made on numerous occations already – including me, including Kevin – and we had the advantage of writing, having a chance to proofread. And still we all forgot at times the qualifier “alledgedly”. It’s an easy mistake to make.
@mzchief
It’s not a rebutal since you can’t be bothered to spell out the proposition you want to support. You can only be bothered to “ask questions” and imply stuff. Thats a lazy way of debating an issue because you expect me to guess what your point is while you yourself commit to nothing. I wont engage until you make it plain what you think that Finkel being “vague” proves, what Wired.com not providing their source material proves. Make a proposition, support it with facts, and I promise to pick it appart once you’re done.
@wavpeac
That’s bullshit. By that yardstick it would be fine for a guy to release the totallity of all U.S. classified information as long as there was one document that the leaker “reasonably believes evidences a violation of law or regulation, including sexual harassment or unlawful discrimination, mismanagement, a gross waste of funds or other resources, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety”. Then there are no longer any state secrets in the U.S.
You may wish the law was written that way, but it isn’t. You’d have heard about it already. No the amount of documents are relevant exactly because the leaking of every document is a case in itself. Every document leaked must qualify under the MWPA. But the volume makes it pretty clear on it’s face that not all documents do. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that one of those documents discloses what the launch codes to our nukes were and how to hack the launch system, but no misconduct that could be in any whistleblowers interest to make the public aware of. Do you think then that that leak would be protected by the act? That’s ridiculous on it’s face. You know it wouldn’t be.
Well rather I thought you were being kind of a jackass making that post above demanding answers some 20 minutes after making the first post.
Well…
Jessie Lee (Sherwood)’s not my enemy. I see him as just another guy trying his best to earn a living, sacrificing what’s demanded -by choice or circumstance. He’s NOT the problem, just as the Republicans are NOT the problem. Obama’s the problem. “Clarence Thomas” Obama has NO vision for the Country, too weak a character to allow him to challenge those he’s groveled to his adult life, NO respect for the middle class. Think about it, Obama’s so out of touch last week he actually repeated a campaign mantra, “Yes we can”. Yes we can what?
You prefer gut instinct over facts? Reminds me of a prez we used to have…
Even if you attempt to redefine “widely reported” as “widely reported in the US,” here’s additional evidence of “widely reported” not only within the US but internationally:
Note that Huffington Post is part of AOL and (by John Brockman, 1996):
As of 2010, Direct Marketing News states in “Will marketers accept HuffPo deal?” (March 01, 2011):
Edit on comment: “
As of 2010,Direct Marketing News states in “Will marketers accept HuffPo deal?” (March 01, 2011):”Wow Sherwood, you are speaking completely in hypotheticals here. It certainly would depend on the transgression implied by the release of info. Are innocent lives at stake, does it put our national security at risk to continue illegal behavior (for instance torture which may actually increase terrorism) how badly does it violate our constitution or international laws? These are all questions to be considered. And obviously the inversion of what you said must be considered too, how much of the info was absolutely harmless, vs what could have done harm, did do harm or would cause harm if ignored by our nation. You WANT this to be black and white, simple. But it’s not. Prove that Manning released 500 documents that caused harm…and that he was the ONLY one with access, prove the damage done and that he profited in some way. Then you might have a case. On the other hand, if he got nothing out of the deal, if wrong doing by the US military is evident in the released documents, if most of what was released was “useless” or “unimportant” or “could have been gathered elsewhere by someone else”, then this is all a silly game.
None of these things are proven by your desire to focus on the amount released. I’ll will continue with the truth…the sheer volume without other info is irrelevant.
And bottom line, whistle blowers must be protected, and the amount of protection high, when we are talking about taking human lives to complete an outcome. If we are going to kill innocent women and children (people), we sure as hell better be able to stand up to some scrutiny, and we sure as hell better be able to tolerate whistle blowers. Prove to me, that the release resulted to actual harm to our country, prove to me that Manning actually did it, prove to me that he was the ONLY one with access and the means to do it, and then we would have a case. In the meantime…he is innocent until proven guilty and frankly I don’t want to live in a country where we “hurt, stress or treat inhumanely” a person before we know that person is guilty of a crime. We are going backwards.
Our country is as sick as it’s secrets. And I don’t really give a crap about what we did or didn’t do in the past. I think, we could make some compelling arguments about the damage state’s secrets do to “human rights”. I am not stating this as an absolute but suggesting this is a question worth seeking an answer. If it’s secret, it’s controversial, if it’s controversial there is likely good reason. Sunlight baby, sunlight. We are a very sick country right now, and it is at least a theory worth exploring that we got here in part by our secrets.
Sherwood Jessie Lee, You said, “let’s assume that one of those documents discloses what the launch codes to our nukes were and how to hack the launch system….”
Assuming that, wouldn’t we be more concerned why the documents were classified allowing more than 1.5 million people with minimal security clearance could view them?
The question format doesn’t change the content nor obscures the points made.
@bailey
It’s a made up example. There’s no classified doc with the launchcodes laying about. AFAIK those are in the Nuke football. There shouldnt be a feasible way to hack into the launching systems or let’s hope there isn’t. It’s an assumption for the sake of argument so let’s assume that only the leaker and three other people had access. Happy now, Shirley?
@mzchief
Yes it does. The minute you say “I think Finkel being vague proves that the collateral damage video was really unclassified and the government is lying about it” I’ll smack you down so hard you won’t know what hit you. You know that.
Until you’re ready to stand by your implied conspiracies I wont make the effort.
Um, you seem to have misinterepreted
.
Which is why I asked you to spell out an explicit and coherent argument. Here you are however in your previous post, citing Kevin i believe:
Is then your and Kevin’s position that you believe that the Colateral Murder video was in fact not classified? You supplied the quote above pretty much without comment but replying to a question about what Manning was being charged with. So what was your point?
Thanks to our community flagging button, we now know that our community overwhelmingly does not want you to be allowed to comment here anonymously any more, Sherwood.
In order to comment in the future, you’re going to have to do some identity hardening. Including but not limited to linking to a genuine, active Facebook identity so everyone can see who you are and that you’re not afraid to stand behind your opinions. Most people who are here 24/7 expounding on one issue, and are being paid to do so, don’t want to do that. So we’ve found it to be a very effective way to separate paid trolls from people who are simply passionate in their opposition. We want to encourage honest disagreement without giving the space over to paid propagandists.
When you have done that, feel free to email info AT firedoglake DOT com, and we’ll link it to your profile. Then we will give you commenting permission again and see if it is enough to convince people that you’re not a paid DoD/DNC operative.
sherwood (Jessie Lee). I see, It’s a totally implausible, totally irrelevant, totally contrived example to support your hypothetical argument – right?
My response is simple. I don’t believe our military is stupid, I certainly don’t believe it would classify any document with a lesser degree of clearance than is warranted to protect lives of our citizens. So, to me it’s all about how many had access to those docs.
And fyi, I’d be a lot happier if you’d have one of those “Eureka” moments and grasp the import & significance TO Manning (& all of us) of what he did. Then, at least maybe someone in the Obama Administration would wonder how smart it’s been to trivialize its legality – to him & all of us.
Way back in ’08 when Obama was campaigning, I truly believed he “got it”, the issue IS important and deserves serious attention. Little did I know then, it was I & the ENTIRE Progressive community who was about to get it – big time!
I hope you enjoy a serene & reflective evening; it’s been bought and paid for by a lot better men & women than you, Obama & AND me.
Can you please explain what aspect of my post is incorrect?
“The misinformation and disinformation being propagated in the media is working.”
Ok. Is Manning Gay? If he is, he has helped set back the cause of gays serving in the military, and justified most reasons that gays were help back in the government and for security clearences. If he isn’t then yep, miss-information from the media has caused me to believe that.
That is not to say no straight person, male or female, has never comitted a crime/treason/violated security protocol. It is to say that he is not exactly helping allowing gays to serve openly. (I hate when people say they want to end DADT- since technically DADT granted gays the right to serve- if they stayed closeted- so ending DADT is actually not letting gays serve in any capacity, but I digress.)
To say that the other aspects of my post are inflammatory, yeah probably. They are also truthfull.
BTW: Manning is going to be found guilty, on some or most of those counts. The conviction rate for Court Martials is over 90%. If he takes a plea agreement (which means he pleads guilty in exchange for a set sentencing or a dropping of some charges), or it just goes to trial, he will be found guilty. The jury of his peers will not be Military personel of low rank and questionable mental stability and with disenchantment toward the government, but career people or “lifers.”
(thats actually a huge issue with anyone facing a court martial BTW. It is rare to find sympathetic people on the jury when most people in the military have a zero defect mentality.)
Well, I’ll pass on responding to you or anyone else in this thread. As you can see for yourself, Jane Hamsher banned my account, presumeably for me being “flagged” by FDL users. Therefore, this is my first – and last – “sock-puppet” post in my life.
As you may know, there were also a pretty long response to wavpeac that I’d posted that Jane deleted for some reason, while letting the rest of my writing in this thread remain.
To be brief: I have no intent whatsoever to try to hang around by any means in a community where I’m not welcome, especially one where you’re supposed to play by a different set of rule if you have the nerve to post oppinions that goes against what’s considered conventional knowledge in that community. I don’t own a Facebook account, and I’m not interested whatsoever in having my real name and identity associated with my political opinions. The right to keep your political views anonymous is usually considered a bedrock of a working democracy and a part of the liberal tradition.
But FDL is a private enterprise and Jane is obv allowed to run her show in whatever way she like.
Anyhow, I wont be responding anymore in this thread or any other on FDL. I hope you and Jane are proud of smearing & ostracizing someone who – while I don’t agree with you on much – have tried to engage and discuss factual matters on merit.
Have a good one, buddy.
Good show Jane. I don’t have a Facebook account, and I’m not interested in having my private information such as name and address etc associated with my political views. The smear that I’m a paid operative is of course based on nothing more than baileys accusations. You’re entitled to your conspiracies though..
All the best, and good luck with your community. Consider, though, that maybe a strong and healthy community needs a diversity of opinion. Just a thought.