The clarifying Manning/Crowley controversy

[EFerrari]

The forced "resignation" of State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley -- for the mortal sin of denouncing the abusive detention of Bradley Manning -- has apparently proven to be a clarifying moment for many commentators about what the President is and how he functions in these areas. Writing at Time's Swampland, Mark Benjamin identifies the real crux of the controversy:

Free speech advocates are shocked, and, as I wrote last week on TIME.com, concerned over Obama's record as the most aggressive prosecutor of suspected government leakers in U.S. history.

Those advocates have wondered whether the penchant for secrecy in the Obama administration comes from the President, or those around him. Obama's statement on Manning, followed by Crowley's resignation, seem to suggest some of this comes from the President himself.


It's long been obvious that the Obama administration's unprecedented war on whistleblowers "comes from the President himself," notwithstanding his campaign decree -- under the inspiring title "Protect Whistleblowers" -- that "such acts of courage and patriotism should be encouraged rather than stifled." The inhumane treatment of Manning plainly has two principal effects: it intimidates future would-be whistleblowers into knowing that they, too, will be abused without recourse, and it will break him psychologically (as prolonged solitary confinement and degrading treatment inevitably do) to render him incapable of a defense and to ensure he provides whatever statements they want about WikiLeaks. Other than Obama's tolerance for the same detainee abuse against which he campaigned and his ongoing subservience to the military that he supposedly "commands," it is the way in which this Manning/Crowley behavior bolsters the regime of secrecy and the President's obsessive attempts to destroy whistleblowing that makes this episode so important and so telling.

Denunciations of the President from his own supporters are as intensive and pervasive here as they have been for any other prior incident, if not more so. Matt Yglesias wrote that "to hold a person without trial in solitary confinement under degrading conditions is a perversion of justice" and that it's a "sad statement about America that P.J. Crowley is the one being forced to resign over Bradley Manning." Andrew Sullivan -- writing under the headline "Obama Owns the Treatment of Manning Now" -- said that Crowley was forced out "for the offense of protesting against the sadistic military treatment of Bradley Manning," that "the president has now put his personal weight behind prisoner abuse," and that "Obama is directly responsible for the inhumane treatment of an American citizen." Meanwhile, Ezra Klein previews his denunciation of the President's treatment of Manning and Crowley by announcing that it's his first ever lede "that isn’t about economic or domestic policy" but rather is "about right and wrong," and then questions "whether the Obama administration is keeping sight of its values now that it holds power." Those strong words are all from supporters of the President.

Elsewhere, The Philadelphia Daily News' progressive columnist Will Bunch accuses Obama of "lying" during the campaign by firing Crowley and endorsing "the bizarre and immoral treatment of the alleged Wikileaks leaker." In The Guardian, Obama voter Daniel Ellsberg condemns "this shameful abuse of Bradley Manning," arguing that it "amounts to torture" and "makes me feel ashamed for the Corps," in which Ellsberg served three years, including nine months at Quantico. Baltimore Sun columnist Ron Smith asks: "Why is the U.S. torturing Private Manning?," while UCLA Professor Mark Kleiman -- who only last year hailed Obama as "the greatest moral leader of our lifetime" and eagerly suggested on Friday (before Obama's Press Conference) that Crowley was speaking for Obama -- mocked Obama's defense of the Manning treatment as "clueless on the Bush level" and now says of Crowley's firing: "The Torturers Win One," while lamenting Obama's overt support for a policy that he calls "unconscionable and un-American and borderline criminal."

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/index.html

[Jefferson23]

1. K&R

[gimama]

2. thanks for this post

great insight in this article. Thanks again!
btW,
Mark Benjamin is a personal INVESTIGATIVE Journalist HERO of mine.

[EFerrari]

3. His is not a familiar name to me. I better go read around.

:)

[seabeyond]

4. down loading hundreds of thousands of emails for "gotcha" moment is not a whistle blower

from my perspective

[EFerrari]

6. They were cables, not emails.

2011-03-07 100 Revelations to Mark 100 Days Since Cablegate Began

Submitted by kgosztola on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 19:19

One hundred days ago, WikiLeaks began to release the US State Embassy cables. The release event, which continues, became known as Cablegate.

A future post will include a look at Cablegate and what its impact on journalism, international diplomacy, and human rights has been and what its role has been in world events like the uprisings and revolutions the world that are currently unfolding. For now, it is worth recounting what has actually been revealed because of the release.

One common denominator can be found in a majority of the cables: corruption. For all the talk of this country and that country being corrupt and that country being so corrupt it's gone, the plain fact is that between all the countries of the world, perhaps as a result of American coercion and/or threat of force, the world is one corrupt planet.

WikiLeaks has managed to partner with 50 media outlets over the course of the past months. 5,287 of 251,287 cables have been released so far. This not only means there will likely be a 200th, 300th and 400th Day of Cablegate but also means there will be many more revelations to come in the next year.

http://wlcentral.org/node/1439

[seabeyond]

10. ok. down loading hundreds of thousands of cables for "gotcha" moment is not a whistle blower

from my perspective

[EFerrari]

14. Is that what you're calling the exposure of all those crimes, "gotcha"?

Exposing murder is "gotcha"?

Okay.

[_ed_]

27. Remember how frustrating it was to hear Republicans

do this from 2000-2008? I'm getting awful sick of Democrats justifying anything that Obama does. I thought we weren't the sheep party like the Republicans.

[Bragi]

33. Then you know nothing of the subject. Pls inform yourself. /nt

[seabeyond]

35. you are wrong. i have. and i am. i dont interpret it the same as you. nt

[Bragi]

39. Then you should know this:

1. Manning downloaded all the cables because he correctly felt they were all needed to comprehensively tell the whole story of America's war crimes abroad. Selected cables would have been suspicious and less credible.

2. He leaked the cables to an organization (Wikileaks) with a proven track record of reviewing and redacting materials and working with media so that innocent people are not put in jeopardy when secrets are revealed. This is why no-one has ever been done physical harm as a result of anything released by Wikileaks.

The idea that Manning engaged in an indiscriminate dump of documents into the public domain is without any foundation in fact.

[seabeyond]

41. 1. "he correctly felt ". you have already ended any conversation about #1.

that is your opinion. it is your opinion that he correctly felt.... it is also your interpretation of why he downloaded hundreds of thousands. i dont buy it.

2. again, this is merely an opinion of yours and "a proven track record of reviewing and redacting materials" ends conversation on your perception. much of what they put out was mere gossip and not relevant to shit, opposite of your opinion. and your interpretation of reason for handing to leaks is only that, an interpretation, not fact. also you conclusion is merely conjecture.

manning dumped massive amounts of private conversation into others hands is fact.

[Bragi]

45. No, those are facts that I stated

1. Fact: Selectively picking and choosing documents for release would only lead to propagandists trying to protect war criminals by claiming that "the real truth" lay hidden in whatever wasn't released.

2. Fact: Wikileaks record of not putting anyone in harm's way remains intact. If some of the material is seen by some as inoffensive gossip, then no harm done.

You conclude by stating a non-fact: manning dumped massive amounts of private conversation into others hands is fact.

These were not private conversations, they were written reports to Washington from U.S diplomats abroad and field reports and other materials from military officers that revealed war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq.

What kind of other material? This kind of other material:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0

Gossipy enough for you?

[seabeyond]

46. this.... is why i never go beyond, i am informed and i disagree with you assessment. nt

[Bragi]

49. I can't blame you for ducking, feel free to have last word /nt

[seabeyond]

50. there always has to be an insult. cant be we see it differently. just the need to insult

lets see who inevitably will get the last word. throwing out that tired one is about the same, too.

[EOTE]

8. Yeah. The U.S. is coddling numerous war criminals. Gotcha!

The Geneva Conventions are just a bunch of silly documents, anyway. You don't find the comparison of the deadly serious information contained within the leaks to "gotcha" moments to be a tad bit disgusting?

[mod mom]

5. Both parties are set up to protect the plutocracy. I can't see myself ever working

for anyone but progressives. How do these people sleep?

[jaxx]

7. Mark Benjamin identifies his personal opinion.

We all have them and the 1st amendment that lets us say what they are. In no way does someone's opinion make it true or false, it is simply an opinion.

I'd like to know why Manning has been singled out by his supporters. Why aren't the people in the surrounding cells being investigated? They are in solitary cells too, allowed the same privileges he has. Don't they count? What are their names, their charges?

Unrec the opinion.

[EFerrari]

15. And then how do you deal with all the other journalists named in the article?

/typo

[jaxx]

17. Opinions.

They all have them.

What about the other prisoners?

[EFerrari]

18. What about them? In fact, what is being done with Obam's approval to Manning

has to open a door to investigating what happens at Abu Quantico.

[jaxx]

19. We really can't communicate when such inflammatory language

is used to make the point of nothing.

[EFerrari]

20. I'm communicating just fine, thanks!

[tekisui]

30. But you can dodge the painful reality. The reality is his treatment is

is punishment before a trial.

[elias49]

34. What do you find 'inflammatory' in post 18? nt

[joeybee12]

36. I know...I guess when you can't win, you make things up and walk away...nt

[OnyxCollie]

48. You're funny.

This phenomenon will become more understandable if we reflect
on the psychology of the communication process. A communication
cannot be viewed as an isolated stimulus automatically evoking a certain
response. The surrounding circumstances make an enormous difference
insofar as the response is concerned. If we want to predict the
response, we have to consider not only the content of the stimulus (what
the communication asserts), but also the predispositions of the recipient
and the perceived role and nature of the source. One of the most important
questions, in connection with this last-named variable, is
whether the source of a communication to me is perceived as a person
whom I know and trust, or as somebody having no person-to-person
tie with me. In the former case, I shall very probably accept the communication
as truth; in the latter, belief will depend on my image of
the basic motivation of the source. If the source's perceived role is that
of a mere purveyor of information who has otherwise no axe to grind,
I am likely to accept the content of his communication matter-of
factly, without an urge to look beyond. If I see the source as a human
being expressing spontaneous opinion, I shall take that opinions imply
as something with which I agree or do not agree, and if I wish I can
freely acknowledge the source as an authority whose views, as views,
carry weight for me. But if the role of the source includes elements
extraneous to the supplying of facts or views-e.g. if I see him as interested
in maintaining a power position in which I do not share then
a barrier will be set up between him and me, and I cannot spontaneously
internalize his message.

Kesckemeti, P. (1950). Totalitarian communications as a means of control: A note on the sociology of propaganda. The Public Opinion Quarterly 14(2), 224-234.

Zealots are so predictable.

[_ed_]

28. Classic obfuscation

Change the subject: If you don't care about all the other prisoners, you can't possibly care about what happens to Manning.

Out of curiousity, how far will you go to support torture? And how did you feel about Republicans that did this 2000-2008? Is it OK just because Obama does it?

[Bragi]

31. Quite so

The tendency of the few people here who support torture to want to change the subject away from Manning is quite evident.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. In a democracy the people should be allowed to know what it's government does.

Even when it's (gasp!) embarrassing.

[Cleita]

51. Yes, that is what should be happening. yet our

elected politicians don't like it. I wonder why?

[DeSwiss]

11. K&R

:popcorn: Apologists commence!

K&R

[kenny blankenship]

12. Oh relax Glenn. They'll stop torturing Bradley Manning as soon as he gives them a statement

incriminating himself, and naming Julian Assange as the recruiter who seduced him into Al Qaeda.

It's not like they do this kind of thing because they just love being evil, like bad guys do. Haven't Hollywood movies taught you anything? Bad guys torture people because they're evil, and relish inflicting pain on powerless victims, end of story. We use harsh interrogation methods because we need prisoners to confess and give us information. We have very good reasons and the best of intentions - always!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. Military Justice: "Lead the guilty man in for a fair trial and sentencing."

[kenny blankenship]

21. Yeah, but not right away.

First you will probably want to break him, so that he is incapable of resisting the prosecution's version of events and holding his head up. Once you force him to despise himself and to see that he is powerless before your authority, THEN he can have his speedy trial.

[EFerrari]

22. They got away with it with Walker Lindh and Padilla.

Who else are they destroying at that prison or at some prison.

[kenny blankenship]

23. I don't know but they've got a cell reserved for Julian Assange

They want him more than OBL, by the looks of it.

[EFerrari]

24. So the new normal is watching our government stalk people

who expose criminality.

:shrug:

[Bragi]

32. Yeah, just another form of entertainment /nt

[EFerrari]

16. Caesar can do no wrong except for just cause. n/t

[EFerrari]

25. .

[pacalo]

26. K&R.

[xchrom]

29. recommend

[myrna minx]

37. K&R n/t

[struggle4progress]

38. A number of media outlets have reported Crowley was unhappy with his State position

and was expected to leave soon anyway. So perhaps he decided to engineer some noise on his way out, to bring attention to some of his concerns. From his resignation statement:

My recent comments .. were intended to highlight the .. actions undertaken by national security agencies every day and their impact on our global standing and leadership. The exercise of power in today’s challenging times and relentless media environment must be prudent and consistent with our laws and values

[kpete]

40. thanks very much

clarity, yes, clarity

like a breath of fresh air,
peace, kpete

[Solly Mack]

42. Already R'ed

Hate it when I do that...recommend a thread and then have a brain fart thinking I also replied.

[leftstreet]

43. K&R

[truebrit71]

44. Strangely devoid of apologists...

...waiting for more talking points to cut and paste?

Manning is being tortured, a spokesman that dared suggested it was so was fired, and the president got his plausible deniability from the pentagon...how's that song go? Meet the new boss....

[sad sally]

52. The unanswered questions now morph into another chapter

regarding prisoner abuse and torture by the US: Operation Phoenix, an alleged operation by the CIA during Vietnam; Blackwater contract interrogators at Abu Ghraib, military members at Guantanamo, the secret rendition prisons sponsored by the US in other Countries that Americans don't need to know about. The dehumanizing of humans by other humans...

[steve2470]

47. k&r nt