Dissent

[beachmom]

Ever since I read last night that Pres. Obama fired State Dept. official P.J. Crowley for speaking the truth about the mistreatment of Branford Manning, I have felt a pit in my stomach. I think we are at a moral crossroad; sadly, this country seems to be going in the wrong direction, back to the mistakes the Bush Administration made when they decided military action with no plan in a Middle Eastern country and torture were the right actions in response to the War on Terror. Those decisions were disastrous to the country, but after the 2006 and 2008 elections, it felt like we had at least learned our lesson and would not repeat those very costly mistakes. Well, it turns out we were wrong. And that is just breaking my heart.

America has always been stronger when we have not only proclaimed free speech, but listened to it. Yes, in every war, there have been those who demand suppression and silencing. And although no one is being jailed today for speaking out against the war in Iraq, the spirit of intolerance for dissent has risen steadily, and the habit of labeling dissenters as unpatriotic has become the common currency of the politicians currently running our country.

Dismissing dissent is not only wrong, but dangerous when America’s leadership is unwilling to admit mistakes, unwilling to engage in honest discussion of the nation’s direction, and unwilling to hold itself accountable for the consequences of decisions made without genuine disclosure, or genuine debate.

We can all say that Barack Obama never had the history John Kerry did, and therefore, we cannot expect him to always do what we figured John Kerry would have done had he been President. Sadly, Senator Kerry seems to side with the President in this case or at best, has hedged his bets:

http://www.necn.com/pages/landing?blockID=434373

Massachusetts Senator John Kerry was asked about the situation, and offered some defense for what's going on.

"There are concerns about what is happening, but a strong argument is being made that they're trying to preserve his safety, they don't want him harming himself, and using his own clothing to hang himself, or do something like that," said Kerry. "That's happened in prison before. I think it is possible to protect him, I think, and there are some legitimate reasons to believe that that may be true also. But I think that a lot of people are now reviewing this very, very closely, people have weighed in, myself included, I think that analyses are being made. There was a big article in the newspapers today examining it. And I'm convinced that there will be real scrutiny with respect to that issue."

I guess I am having a problem reconciling the John Kerry of 2011 with the John Kerry of 2006 who had moral clarity. 2011 John Kerry doesn't seem to know; not only that, he is full throttle advocating for a No Fly Zone in Libya. Sure, he wants the international support which separates him from Bush, but where's the plan? How far does this go? I am not hearing that. Frankly, conservative writer Ross Douthat is making more sense:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/opinion/14douthat.html?_r=2&ref=todayspaper

In reality, there are lessons from our years of failure in Iraq that can be applied to an air war over Libya as easily as to a full-scale invasion or counterinsurgency. Indeed, they can be applied to any intervention — however limited its aims, multilateral its means, and competent its commanders.

One is that the United States shouldn’t go to war unless it has a plan not only for the initial military action, but also for the day afterward, and the day after that. Another is that the United States shouldn’t go to war without a detailed understanding of the country we’re entering, and the forces we’re likely to empower.

I remember this as the moment I was most proud of John Kerry that day in April 2006:

The true defeatists today are not those who call for recognizing the facts on the ground in Iraq. The true defeatists are those who believe America is so weak that it must sacrifice its principles to the pursuit of illusory power.

The true pessimists today are not those who know that America can handle the truth about the Administration’s boastful claim of “Mission Accomplished” in Iraq. The true pessimists are those who cannot accept that America’s power and prestige depend on our credibility at home and around the world. The true pessimists are those who do not understand that fidelity to our principles is as critical to national security as our military power itself.

And the most dangerous defeatists, the most dispiriting pessimists, are those who invoke September 11th to argue that our traditional values are a luxury we can no longer afford.

Isn't treating our own citizens who are incarcerated (who have not even stood for trial) humanely adhering to our traditional values? Is firing a public official who dissented in defense of those traditional values in line with what Sen. Kerry felt that day in Boston?

Our enemies argue that all our claims about advancing universal principles of human rights and mutual respect disguise a raw demand for American dominance. They gain every time we tolerate or cover up abuses of human rights in Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay, or among sectarian militias in Iraq, and especially when we defiantly disdain the rules of international law.

Moral values are a big reason why I am a Kerry supporter. I would like to see evidence of those values right now. At this point, the only public official who bravely expressed those values has been sacked and for which only writers (as diverse as Glenn Greenwald to Andrew Sullivan to Ezra Klein) have defended. I think P.J. Crowley echoes John Kerry's values in his Dissent speech in his letter of resignation:

"My recent comments regarding the conditions of the pre-trial detention of Private First Class Bradley Manning were intended to highlight the broader, even strategic impact of discreet 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," Crowley said. "Given the impact of my remarks, for which I take full responsibility, I have submitted my resignation."

As Ezra Klein wrote this morning in his Wonkbook e-mail, this is about right and wrong. I am quite distressed by the behavior of the Obama Administration and for John Kerry staying largely silent. I am having a tough time with John Kerry sitting on the sidelines on an issue where he has had deep conviction on in the past. Where is the leadership, Senator?

Dissent speech can be read in full on the Dem Daily archive: http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=2723

[Mass]

1. I must be missing something. As a spokeperson, Crowley did the big NO-NO.

He spoke against the administration he represents and he became the story. It is no surprise he had to leave.

I am sorry for him because he seems a good guy, but I am not surprised that there were fall-outs.

As for Manning, I am still waiting to hear FACTS about what happened. There are many conflicting reports, including some that he is on a suicide watch. I dont claim to know. I cannot say I am not bothered, but I cannot say I know either.If people could stop yelling for a minute or two and put FACTS (not pundits views one way or the other), may be things would be clearer. For example, has Manning's lawyer made a claim for inhumane treatment? I saw the father's interview saying that his son was not complaining, but it asks more questions it answers.

What surprises me is that people like Ezra Klein, who could not find fault in Obama's dealing with healthcare, all of a sudden get excited on something that seems pretty minor. Or is it that Klein can identify himself as Crowley, but not as guy without health insurance. BTW, Did Klein wrote anything about Manning before that?

[beachmom]

2. According to the Pentagon he is not on suicide watch.

Follow it all on Greg Mitchell's The Nation:

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/media-fix

It's constantly being updated:

http://www.thenation.com/blog/159214/wikileaks-news-views-blog-monday-day-107

I disagree that this is a minor thing. And apparently you can't be objective about Ezra Klein since you disliked his HRC coverage. Go to his site if you want to read what he said.

[Mass]

3. Well, I dont know a lot of spokepeople who could have said what Crowley said and not suffer

consequences, so I find this minor. But once again, we should agree to disagree on that.

And yes, I can be objective on Klein. I read him nearly every day. I was just pointing out that there are things more important than others. For example, having a decent health coverage or a job is in my opinion more important,and I am certain that there are millions of people who have these types of self-centered worries and who find that, in the cosmic order of things, that a spokeman speaking out against the government he represents has to resign is a minor thing. This is what I was referring to. And there are many things that are a lot more important, so I cannot summon enough outrage concerning Crowley.

[beachmom]

4. But as Glenn Greenwald mentioned, Bush fired dissenters in his gov.

and Democrats were outraged. So there seems to be a double standard.

Yes, jobs and health care are extremely important. The Manning situation will no doubt have zero effect on the election, as torture was a non-issue in '04 & '08. That doesn't mean it's not important -- you are correct that there are conflicting reports (although I found the Pentagon rebuttal to confirm more than it refuted), but that's the problem -- Pres. Obama's response (and Kerry's to a lesser extent) was maddening and leads me to be more suspicious not less.

And just to clarify from what I am seeing in GD/GDP (which I rarely visit), I do not think Manning is some kind of hero or innocent. In fact, when the cables hit I was sympathetic more to the government. However, since then the government (after right wingers taunted Obama for being weak for letting the leaks happen) has behaved in a horrible and intemperate fashion. Like bullying servers to take down the Wikileaks website, to charge Wikileaks itself with a crime (sorry, but they are no different than the NYT, in that they publish information not steal information), and finally their treatment of Manning is odd. 23 hours solitary confinement (or in Pentagon words "single cell" with 1 hour of exercise a day) is strange for someone who fancies himself a whistleblower (we can debate whether he is a "good" whistleblower but he clearly wasn't trying to help the Taliban for goodness sake). He also hasn't even been charged yet. And finally, he WAS nude at night (confirmed by the Pentagon, although they said he had a blanket). It just is not my idea of how a non-violent prisoner should be treated. I am very concerned about it, and think the government is not particularly deserving of trust at this point.

[karynnj]

5. On Crowley, there IS a problem when aspokesperson -speaking publicly

takes a stand 180 degrees from his boss and does not say that he is speaking just for himself. The fact is, this was reported internationally and was reported as the State Department position or Clinton's position. On something like this, even the Secretary of Defense or State - if they disagreed would need to state that they were speaking from their own conscience because they too are spokespeople. I would agree with you if he gave the administrations policy and then gave his own opinion. As this was NOT a formal press conference, this would seem reasonable - they don't own him 100% ofthe time. but they could still fire him.

I've already disagreed on Manning. At this point, unless something happened this weekend when I was completely not on line, no official other than Kucinich has said more than Kerry. What seems clear is he did weigh in - and they were supposedly re-evaluating it. That was a week ago - there is already a change per one article, he does not sleep in the nude -http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1365493/Pentagon-tells-Obama-Bradley-Mannings-prison-treatment-appropriate--gets-just-hour-outside-cell.html . There is no way to say that the behind the scenes push back did not lead to this - if it's true, as the Daily Mail is not that great a source (even if "Paperback Writer had a steady job" there according to the Beatles.) Now, I don't know what the other charges were - other than near solitary confinement.

While I think Manning's treatment is wrong, I absolutely disagree with many who feel he is a hero or even just innocent.

On the no fly zone, I think had Obama done what JK did - when he did, there was some real chance it could have made a difference. If it were President Obama IMMEDIATELY speaking to top Libyan leaders trying to pull them away by pointing out they could be tried, more might have splintered off. In addition, if the US the EU, and the Arab league would have immediately started getting the approvals and developing the capabilities of a no fly zone, it likely might have prevented Gadaffi from using his planes. At this point, the Arab League now backs a no fly zone for the exact purpose JK gave - and not more.

This actually is not the simple easy answer. The two easy answers on this. One is to recommend doing nothing - saying it's not our job, it's not in our national interest, or we just don't have the resources. For a war weary country, this is likely the most popular answer. The other is a full blown commitment - that the Republicans, who are proposing it know won't happen. They can argue later that this would have been easy and the people would be free - the good thing about claiming the reward of a path not taken is that no one could prove you are wrong.

Kerry's position really is in the middle - and it is very limited. He proposed it ONLY if a massacre using planes was happening - and he made it clear that grounding the planes was the only objective. The concern was clearly coming from a moral position. As he said in his oped, just planning it and having it operational could possibly have stopped the use of planes. Now, that would STILL leave the rebels completely at a military disadvantage - so it is not choosing the winner. But, if it is true that planes bring large scale death to civilians in areas out of Qaddafi's control far beyond what tanks and other weapons would do, making it clear the world would stop this is a good idea. (I also see that this does fit exactly what JK was speaking of as a moral test - he wants the world to stop something that near universally would be considered wrong.)

The political difficulty is that if he called our bluff, we could take all the risks and have complete success in the limited mission with everything happening flawlessly AND Qaddafi could still win. I think most people here would see what did happen (Qaddafi won) rather than what didn't happen (thousands of people were not massacred - how do you even estimate the number?) So, this is clearly not a "political" position, but a moral one. As one of the people, who has spoken since at least 2004 of young people demanding better lives as a way that things change, he is clearly uncomfortable seeing them mowed down without speaking out.

[karynnj]

6. PBS also says that he has the garment to sleep in

- and other details - http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/03/exclusive-bradley-mannings-father-discusses-sons-incarceration-with-frontline.html