Shame on the Secretary of State. This is the most disgraceful moment of her tenure.

[kpete]

Clinton's Complicity In Obama Administration's Treatment Of Manning And Firing Of Crowley
By Big Tent Democrat, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 09:14:00 AM EST


...........................

What I have not seen is criticism of Crowley's boss, the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who should have defended Crowley. Instead, she is now complicit in the Obama Administration's disgraceful behavior. Shame on the Secretary of State. This is the most disgraceful moment of her tenure.

Speaking for me only
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2011/3/15/10128/1619

[ecstatic]

1. Well, if Big Tent Democrat says so, it must be true

:eyes: :crazy:

[Suziq]

21. Big Tent Democrat

has been suffering with CDS for quite a long time. :crazy:

[carolinayellowdog]

134. Chicago Dental Society?

California Dressage Society?
Center for Documentary Studies?

[carolinayellowdog]

108. content-free snark always is good for the first reply

also earns a place on my ignore list

[DeSwiss]

135. +1000

:thumbsup:

Same here.

[mod mom]

2. My rec brought this to zero. How could someone not be bothered by this?

should we act like good little soldiers and think since it's a Dem Administration, torture is OK? Well it most certainly is NOT with me. SHAMEFUL!

[Duende azul]

156. Rec'd. But it is not her most disgraceful moment. There were more of them.

Think of the coup in Honduras, only to name one.

[AKDavy]

157. Honduras and Manning...

Proof of empire and tyranny.

[Swede]

3. Shame on his dad for saying Manning is ok.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x644111#644421

[EFerrari]

8. He didn't say his son was okay. That remark is out of context.

He specifically gave the interview to protest his son's treatment at Quantico. See the whole interview.

[BOHICA12]

129. Did you hear his dad?

The words were one thing ... all proper and correct, but the cold, unemotional delivery was just plain freaky! The idea that he goaded his son into join to Army to gain direction is just plain sad. A volunteer force need to be a volunteer force. Some, many, lots, are not suited for the direction.

[Mimosa]

166. Bohica, kids join to get an education for future jobs and benefits

Bohica, kids join to get an education for future jobs and benefits that can't get in today's economy. I believe the massive outsourcing of jobs was partly intended to make sure there would be plenty of young and able bodies available to the military during the post-draft era.

College educations have become increasingly expensive and sometimes out of reach for 'middle class' families. That's where the military steps in.

[Luminous Animal]

13. You mean the interview in which his dad says Bradley's treatment is inexcusable and degrading?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x649213#649244

[Swede]

16. Yeah that's the one. He's ok.

No torture.

[Luminous Animal]

18. On the contrary. Bradley Manning is being tortured.

Jose Padilla was tortured, thousands of U.S. prisoners in Supermax prisons are being tortured. We torture in Cuba, Iraq, and Afghanistan and we ship people elsewhere to be tortured. Torture is not an anomaly of our system but a feature.

[BB1]

47. Put like that,

you sound like the US govt. are a bunch of torturers. Maybe the Spanish Inquisition will have them. Meanwhile, Manning is still behind bars and unlikely to ever see the sun again.

[EFerrari]

53. Well, our government was the only one with a worldwide torture program,

if it has been shut down, that is.

[trud]

178. EFerrari

I doubt, unfortunately that "our government was the only one with a worldwide torture program." I suspect a lot of dirty governments are in this business.

My opinion of Obama has varied. But excusing the treatment of Manning says Obama has no morals or, if he believes what he was apparently told, is an adjective I probably can't use if I want to continue to post in DU.

[formercia]

193. It was outsourced

Like everything else.

[fascisthunter]

113. THAT'S a LIE

[ReggieVeggie]

176. you have incorrect information

funny how that works for your point-of-view

[niyad]

4. still at zero--guess some people don't like hearing truth

[hfojvt]

12. never have so few suffered so much as so many didn't care

This is hugh!!

[DURHAM D]

5. Shame on Clinton for accepting the resignation of someone who was leaving anyway. nt

[Autumn]

6. She should have ignored Obama and refused to accept

Crowley's resignation. Wait, never mind they both work for Obama.

[kpete]

10. thanks Autumn

complicit
sad...

peace, kpete

[snappyturtle]

7. Still zero!!! nt

[EFerrari]

9. Big Tent Democrat must not have followed Honduras

or lately, Haiti.

[sabrina 1]

23. Airc, he was a huge Hillary supporter

I guess it takes a lot to give up on someone in whom you've had so much faith. But he's a pretty honest person, and I don't know what he said about Hondurus, but I'm not surprised to see him being honest about Hillary in this situation, even though he supported her.

[Beacool]

63. And what the heck was she supposed to do when the request came from the WH?????

Resign too?

Please.........

:shrug:

[sabrina 1]

89. The same thing PJ Crowley did.

Unless of course she supports the inhumane and degrading treatment of detainees. Which I believe now is probably the case.

After she responded to the question about torture in the campaign, I lost interest in her campaign, although to be honest, no one who voted for the Iraq War was ever a consideration for me.

Strange how little by little we move towards Bush policies when democrats espouse them. As if the torture and degradation is somehow less painful, or the wars less devastating, when democrats do it.

Personally I never changed but the party I support keeps moving further and away from what I thought they represented. We have to do something about that like working hard to remove pro-war and pro-torture members of this party. At least now we know what we have to do.

[Carolina]

95. K&R your post

especially... "After she responded to the question about torture in the campaign, I lost interest in her campaign, although to be honest, no one who voted for the Iraq War was ever a consideration for me."

Along those same lines, Obama's choice of Biden --who also voted for IWR-- as VP was the 1st signal to me that maybe he was not all hope and change. But in 11/2008, what choice did I/we have?!

Too bad, the reservations some of us had then have proven to be true. The Democratic Party as a whole has abandoned true D/democrats (big and small "d").

[pacalo]

114. The party has definitely changed, not us.

[karynnj]

140. Elliot Richardson did rather than fire Archibald Cox

The fact of the matter is that she very likely agreed with the fact that he could not continue representing the administration after that.

[susanr516]

122. No, he was an Obama supporter

although his support was much more pragmatic than enthusiastic.

[Beacool]

11. Why is it that so many always try to blame others for Obama's choices?

Remember when every Obama turn to the center-right was supposed to be Rahm's fault? If all else fails, divert attention to someone else. Well, this is Hillary Clinton you are talking about and not some semi-unknown flunky. They will not get away with it. The WH requested Crowley's resignation, period. The left should deal with it and point fingers at the big house on Pennsylvania Ave.

:eyes:

[still_one]

14. First of all what would you expect from someone part of the administration? This should be no

surprise. Second, and most important, there is really very little difference between Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, and I would suspect Hillary Clinton's philosophy are similar

[DeadEyeDyck]

132. hear, hear

[Sky Masterson]

15. They should just free him and give him a medal.

I mean he is a hero..Just because he gave classified documents to a foriegn entity should be overlooked completely.
I bet they have jumper cables attached to his nipples as we speak. :hide:

[Luminous Animal]

19. "Foreign entity." The new meme in hopes to conflate journalists with governments.

[Sky Masterson]

24. I just don't think he should be lionized

If he was a foriegn spy who did the same thing would everyone still think of him as a hero.

[EFerrari]

25. Spies don't work for transparency but for advantage.

There's no comparison unless you mean the government is an enemy of the American people.

[Sky Masterson]

27. No, But a person who doles out classified documents

sure isn't a friend.

[EFerrari]

36. Your generalization really doesn't work.

Outting Valerie Plame was wrong. It had very negative consequences for our national security.

Outting government criminality as Manning is alleged to have done is a net benefit to our democracy just as the publication of the Pentagon Papers was a net benefit.

[Sky Masterson]

48. "net benefit ".. You don't know that.

You and everyone only knows what they are told and what we are told is filtered and tilted to our desired assumptions.
The Manning Supporters hope this is true and that he will be free and exonerated of these perceived wrong doings.
I don't oppose or support him.

[EFerrari]

50. No, having information about how our government works

and what it is doing, like covering up the murders of civilians and obstructing the investigation of torture, is important information for citizens to have. A net benefit.

And we don't only know what we are told. We know what we are able to critically assess with the information at our disposal,

[Sky Masterson]

77. My bad.

I'm now glad that he gave classified documents to Julian Assange. Yay Treason!
:woohoo:

[EFerrari]

83. Yes, the only kind of "treason" people recognize any more

is when their owners suffer embarrassment. Their lies that led to millions of deaths and trillions in wasted tax dollars, not so much. :)

/typo

[Sky Masterson]

97. I'm with you on exposing the lies

Trust me on that. If I honestly believed that Manning was being tortured (Besides Incarceration which is torture in itself)I would be raising a stink with the rest of you. But I don't. And I think a bad crime was committed. Even if I may like some of the results of it.
What gives him the right to do what he did? He was trusted and betrayed that trust. I don't get all of the birtheresq fervor of this..

[RaleighNCDUer]

159. What gives him to right to do what he did?

His oath to protect the constitution of the United States. When he finds evidence of the government committing crimes, he is duty bound to report those crimes. If he knows that reporting them up the chain of command will only get them ignored and himself silenced, he is honor bound to bring them into the light.

Was Colin Powell a hero for covering up Mi Lai? Fuck no. Powell violated his oath to protect the constitution by helping abet a crime. The only difference here is we would have never found out if Manning stayed silent - if HE abbetted the crimes.

[Mimosa]

168. What he is ACCUSED of doing...remember presumed innocent until proven guilty

...and all that rigamarole about a trial? Even a military trial? Has the KID even been indicted?

BTW, how smart is it to place a 21 year old in the way of super sensitive, classified information? It seems if they were trying to keep secrets they'd assign seasoned Army Intelligence officers to such work, not raw recruits.

[Sky Masterson]

174. I agree with you.

"BTW, how smart is it to place a 21 year old in the way of super sensitive, classified information? It seems if they were trying to keep secrets they'd assign seasoned Army Intelligence officers to such work, not raw recruits." Exactly!
I wouldn't be surprised if several countries had that information anyways via spies.

[Sky Masterson]

173. So everyone else who had access to that info must be traitors

for not handing them over to someone who wasn't an American citizen.
Like I said..Just because you like the results doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed.
It doesn't mean he is being tortured.
And it doesn't make any of this right.

[pacalo]

120. We also learned through WikiLeaks that journalists covering Iraq were targeted to be killed.

[Sky Masterson]

184. Out of the tens of thousands of documents that were released

I am sure a bunch of evils were exposed that probably needed to be. I'm with many of you here on that.
But Manning (When formerly charged and prosecuted) is probably guilty of committing a very serious crime.
Maybe he is a hero to some but he broke the law and he will have to pay for it.
If it comes out that he is actually being abused then I want the Abusers to pay for their crimes.

[tomp]

175. if they are documents that expose a corrupt govt....

then he is my friend and truly a friend of the people.

[Luminous Animal]

31. He's not a foreign spy. We are dealing with the facts at hand.

[RaleighNCDUer]

158. If he was a foreign spy who exposed crimes committed by our government,

YES.

WHISTLEBLOWERS ARE NOT CRIMINALS.

[EFerrari]

22. Your remark brings to mind Inhofe calling torture "frat pranks".

[Sky Masterson]

26. I think people are blowing this all out of proportion.

Just because you agree with the act doesn't make it not a crime.
I seriously doubt he is being tortured.

[EFerrari]

33. I think people are making themselves into pretzels trying to rationalize

the fact that our government is abusing if not torturing a prisoner in order to suborn perjury. It's a pretty sad spectacle.

[Sky Masterson]

35. Maybe both sides are

and the truth is somewhere in the middle

[EFerrari]

56. No, it's pretty much one side minimizing the abuse of Bradley Manning.

Manning's supporters aren't fabricating it. The day PJ Crowley agrees with me, you gotta know something is amiss. :)

[Sky Masterson]

79. Whatever

Have fun with your crusade.

[RaleighNCDUer]

160. Lets see - stripped naked at night in a cold cell. doesn't make for a good

night's sleep. During the day, forced to verbally reply to the guards every five minutes through the day. Can't get any sleep during the day, either.

Sleep deprivations IS TORTURE.

Unless, of course, you go by the Bushies definition of 'intense physical pain' being the only criterion of torture. The ONLY way you can claim he is not being tortured is by agreeing with Bush on what torture is.

Have you really fallen so low?

[loudsue]

44. Well, you, like Obama, seem to be judge, jury and executioner.

After all, we don't need any stinkin' trials. Trials are old fashioned democracy, not this newfangled "I decide, you deal with it" mentality.

[Sky Masterson]

49. Maybe you seem to be Judge Jury and Exonerater?

I'm off to lunch now.. Have fun with the crusade and all.

[treestar]

84. And furthermore, everyone else convicted of the same charge

should be freed! No one should have to stand trial for any charges! Or something like that!

Notice no one cared about these procedures before, yet surely they've been used before.

[pacalo]

116. Julian Assange = a foreign (gasp! meaning "terrorist"?!) ENTITY (how nefarious!)

[pacalo]

119. There's that "foreign entity" talking point again. How long was it that we hoped that

someone like Assange would come along to expose the lies & wrongdoing during the boy king's reign? I don't think exposing corruption is a bad thing. Exposing crime is one way to stop it. Assange is a hero & he does deserve a medal.

And thank God for other "foreign entities" like "The Guardian" who kept us informed with the truth when our own "entities" took a walk from their journalistic duties & became cheerleaders for Bush's lies & wrongdoing.

[pacalo]

127. Daniel Ellsberg, whose Pentagon Papers leak was instrumental in ending the VietNam war

& who was once painted as a "war criminal", thinks Bradley & Assange are heroes:

http://mobile.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/14/manning/index.html,

To see why that's so, just recall some of what Manning purportedly said about why he chose to leak, at least as reflected in the edited chat logs published by Wired:

Lamo: what's your endgame plan, then?. . .

Manning: well, it was forwarded to - and god knows what happens now - hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms - if not, than we're doomed - as a species - i will officially give up on the society we have if nothing happens - the reaction to the video gave me immense hope; CNN's iReport was overwhelmed; Twitter exploded - people who saw, knew there was something wrong . . . Washington Post sat on the video… David Finkel acquired a copy while embedded out here. . . . - i want people to see the truth… regardless of who they are… because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public.

if i knew then, what i knew now - kind of thing, or maybe im just young, naive, and stupid . . . im hoping for the former - it cant be the latter - because if it is… were fucking screwed (as a society) - and i dont want to believe that we’re screwed.

[Luminous Animal]

148. "because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public."

Exactly.

[FormerDittoHead]

17. Funny. I remember people wondering if Clinton could be trusted to carry out Obama's policies.

It seems that's what she is doing that here.

Which way do you guys want it?

[pacalo]

121. Based on his campaign remarks, yes. Based on Bush's policies, hell no.

[phleshdef]

20. Yet none of this is nearly as disgraceful as Manning's actions themselves.

[CrossChris]

28. Have those actions been proven in court yet? I thought that's how we did things.

Until then, what we're doing to Manning is based on speculation. I didn't think we did that in America. Educate me if I'm wrong.

[phleshdef]

34. Jared Loughner's actions have not been proven in court yet.

He is still guilty.

Manning is the guy that leaked all the documents. No one is even attempting to deny it. The fact that his trial hasn't occurred yet doesn't change that.

[CrossChris]

40. So there were eyewitnesses to Manning's crimes just like in Loughner's case?

I'm having trouble understanding the similarities. I understand how, for the sake of conversation, someone who was observed committing a crime by many eyewitnesses, where the perpetrator admitted the crime can be said to be guilty.

Here, all we have is a non-denial. Now that's enough to put someone in solitary for months without a trial? Maybe there's a different aspect to this case that I'm missing. Please fill me in.

[phleshdef]

51. The evidence against him is pretty overwhelming.

The FBI has ceased chat logs of conversations between Manning and the individual that turned him in where Manning is openly discussing the whole ordeal.

There were other individuals that knew Manning that he had specifically discussed the possibility of leaking classified documents with.

Manning was an intelligence officer that had access to the documents and thus the ability to obtain them and leak them (they can easily determine who had access and who did not).

And yes, there is non-denial.

There is very little reason to doubt that Manning did this. Hardly anyone, even Manning's biggest supporters are questioning whether or not he did it. He did it.

[CrossChris]

54. Why do we even have a court system then, if this is all we need to imprison people?

Serious question. You're saying that we have enough evidence to declare him guilty---why waste time with the formality of a trial? Why don't we just do away with the courts then?

[phleshdef]

57. Because a trial and the court does a hell of a lot more than just declare people innocent or guilty.

The court also determines the severity of the crime and what the severity of the punishment should be. And the court also determines whether or not the person that committed the crime was mentally stable enough to be considered responsible for the crime. There is a lot more to justice than just an up or down vote on guilt.

[CrossChris]

59. Oh, so public opinion determines guilt, and courts are just for sentencing & other formalities.

I learned a lot today.

[phleshdef]

64. No, you are putting words in my post to avoid losing an argument.

I'm not the judge. I never claimed to be. I'm simply stating that there is no reason, for me, as an outside observer, to believe he isn't guilty. I'm not objecting to him having a trial, a trial where the judge (or judges) treat him as an innocent person and put the burden on the prosecution to prove his guilt... that is if he doesn't plead guilty anyway (which he probably will).

I have the right to think and say anything I want regarding his guilt, no trial is required for me to do so. I'm not the judge. I'm not a jury member. I'm not a prosecutor or a defense attoryney. There is no law against me doing that. I've seen what the evidence will be and its painfully obvious that he likely is the culprit and guilty of leaking these documents.

[CrossChris]

67. He's been in solitary for months, and you seem to be justifying it by saying we know he's guilty.

Show me where I've got your basic stance wrong.

[phleshdef]

71. The portrayal of his solitary confinement has been dramatically overblown.

He has been allowed visits by friends and family. He is allowed to talk to guards and other prisoners. He has to live in a cell by himself and thats pretty much the extent of the solitary nature of it. There is no need for me to justify that. Thats what happens when you do something like he did and end up getting yourself put in a military, max security jail awaiting trial for your crimes.

[pacalo]

124. Your description is minimizing the mental torture being conducted. Here's a more detailed

account from "The Guardian", dated 3/11/11:

http://m.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/11/stripped-naked-bradley-manning-prison?cat=world&type=article

The most graphic passage of the letter is Manning's description of how he was placed on suicide watch for three days from 18 January. "I was stripped of all clothing with the exception of my underwear. My prescription eyeglasses were taken away from me and I was forced to sit in essential blindness."

Manning writes that he believes the suicide watch was imposed not because he was a danger to himself but as retribution for a protest about his treatment held outside Quantico the day before. Immediately before the suicide watch started, he said guards verbally harassed him, taunting him with conflicting orders.

(...)

He also describes the experience of being stripped naked at night and made to stand for parade in the nude, a condition that continues to this day. "The guard told me to stand at parade rest, with my hands behind my back and my legs spaced shoulder-width apart. I stood at parade rest for about three minutes … The (brig supervisor) and the other guards walked past my cell. He looked at me, paused for a moment, then continued to the next cell. I was incredibly embarrassed at having all these people stare at me naked."

[phleshdef]

126. No, I just dont buy his cry baby bullshit. Its an insult to people that have actually been tortured.

[pacalo]

128. Solitary confinement alone is mental torture, but the harrassment, humiliation, forced nudity,

& taunting shouldn't be overlooked, either.

This is from a good article by Glenn Greenwald. The entire article is worth the read for anyone who'd like to be better informed about the circumstances, but I'm posting now an excerpt about solitary confinement:

http://mobile.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/14/manning/index.html,

Just by itself, the type of prolonged solitary confinement to which Manning has been subjected for many months is widely viewed around the world as highly injurious, inhumane, punitive, and arguably even a form of torture.  In his widely praised March, 2009 New Yorker article -- entitled "Is Long-Term Solitary Confinement Torture?" -- the surgeon and journalist Atul Gawande assembled expert opinion and personal anecdotes to demonstrate that, as he put it, "all human beings experience isolation as torture."  By itself, prolonged solitary confinement routinely destroys a person’s mind and drives them into insanity.  A March, 2010 article in The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law explains that "solitary confinement is recognized as difficult to withstand; indeed, psychological stressors such as isolation can be as clinically distressing as physical torture."

For that reason, many Western nations -- and even some non-Western nations notorious for human rights abuses -- refuse to employ prolonged solitary confinement except in the most extreme cases of prisoner violence.  "It’s an awful thing, solitary," John McCain wrote of his experience in isolated confinement in Vietnam. “It crushes your spirit."  As Gawande documented: "A U.S. military study of almost a hundred and fifty naval aviators returned from imprisonment in Vietnam . . . reported that they found social isolation to be as torturous and agonizing as any physical abuse they suffered."  Gawande explained that America’s application of this form of torture to its own citizens is what spawned the torture regime which President Obama vowed to end:

[phleshdef]

197. True solitary confinement stretch out over a long period of time, I might agree with that...

...eventually turning into a form of torture. But thats not what Manning has been subjected to. He has been allowed visitors. This is well documented. He has not been cut off from the entire world. He lives in a cell by himself and there have been brief periods of his imprisonment where he has not been allowed social interaction. But its not even close to the kind of solitary confinement you or Greenwald is actually talking about. Its a false equation.

And the nature of his "forced nudity" does not fit the extreme profile either. Its not an Abu Graib type thing at all. He was put in a situation where he went without clothes to sleep in. The story was that they felt he was a suicide risk. That may or may not be true and if they made that shit up to justify doing that to him, then the person making that call at that prison should be punished. But its still not torture. Torture implies something far more severe than anything he has been subjected to.

I don't agree with, nor did I ever say I agreed with some of the measures we take to deal with prisoners in this country. I prefer to see people treated with mercy. Thats my nature. But when we apply words like torture to things that don't really add up to the power of the word, we lessen what the word means and it thus begins to lose meaning. Its what the right wing did with the word "terrorist" and now we are doing it with the word torture. If they waterboard the guy, I'll be the first to stand up and yell about it.

[pacalo]

202. I haven't read anything about his being allowed visitors except for "brief periods" of time.

You're dismissing everything written by Greenwald (maybe because you didn't read it?), & if you're not open-minded enough to learn more about the mental torture, there's no sense in debating about it.

[soryang]

131. If you think you've seen the evidence, you don't what evidence is

People like you scare me. American juries scare me because they are like you.

[Luminous Animal]

151. Actually, what you've seen is edited evidence. Neither Wired nor any other media org

has produced the Lamo/Manning chat logs in full. What has been established is that Lamo has lied about some of those unpublished logs.

Oh well.

[kpete]

94. well said CrossChris

and peace,
kpete

[RaleighNCDUer]

163. Courts also judge mitigation or even exoneration if there is evidence

that the crime was committed for a greater good - kind of like someone shooting someone to save someone else's life.

If he is judged to be a whistleblower exposing government crimes, he will be exonerated. But now that they've already tortured him they have to double down, no matter what mitigating circumstances there might be.

You know what's going to happen. After weeks of 'suicide watch', he's going to be suicided. He will never see a courtroom. The military can't take that risk.

[hobbit709]

43. Have you seen the facts. I'd hate to have you on any jury with your preconceived verdict.

[phleshdef]

55. I've seen excerpts of the conversations where Manning talks about leaking the info.

You could claims its all a grand conspiracy and that the conversations are fakes and they are trying to prosecute an innocent soul... but that wouldn't make a damn lick of sense. The government WANTS to prosecute the person that actually leaked the information. Its in the interest of the government to do so. Setting someone up for a crime like this would not benefit them in anyway.

[Bragi]

46. This diversion seems to be your whole strategy

Is that diversion off the topic all you have?

If so, consider your point made.

[phleshdef]

58. This is the first time I've mentioned Loughner in regards to the Manning issue EVER.

You are getting your posters confused.

[elias49]

101. No confusion about the meme being created.

It would go something like this: "At every opportunity conflate Bradley Manning with Jared Loughner. Or Gotti. The essential thrust is to criminalize Bradley Manning before trial."
And I bet Manning doesn't flush the toilet either. :sarcasm:

[phleshdef]

102. Its not attempt to equate the 2 individuals.

In most cases, when someone is bringing up the "he hasn't been convicted yet so you don't know if he is guilty" tactic, its because they are trying to avoid discussing the factual evidence that supports the notion that the person is in fact guilty.

Having not been convicted does not absolve one of guilt. It just means the trial hasn't happened and thus, the person is still legally "innocent". Thats fine. Thats how our legal system should work. But average people discussing the situation are not bound by any laws or moral codes to withold a casual judgement on the situation until a conviction is or isn't issued. I am 100% sure that Manning is guilty of leaking the documents based on the evidence thats already been put forward. There is nothing wrong with me feeling sure of that and expressing that I'm sure of that. Nothing.

There are enough facts out there on this to support the notion that Manning did in fact leak all the documents that has been charged with leaking. However, some are conveniently ignoring that and instead going for the cop out. When I see that sort of thing, I feel compelled to mention other recent cases where its painfully obvious the person is guilty but hasn't been convicted yet. Loughner is the easiest one that comes to mind. Apart from that, the 2 have nothing in common.

[RaleighNCDUer]

162. And how is Loughner being treated?

If he was treated the way Manning is his lawyer would be tearing down the jail - never mind the fact of his obvious guilt.

WE, AS A NATION, DO NOT TREAT PEOPLE THIS WAY.

Why should we overlook it just because Manning embarassed the military?

[ReggieVeggie]

177. OK this fucked up

Loughner is a MURDERER there is nothing that equates Loughner's situation with Manning's NOTHING ya freakin HACK! Man, I swear, freepers got NOTHING on you people!

[treestar]

86. People are detained all the time pre-trial

That is permissible under the constitution.

And military procedures are stricter.

[hobbit709]

29. Which actions? The alleged ones he still hasn't been charged with?

[phleshdef]

30. No, the ones that he has been charged with. 24 charges to be exact.

He was officially charged last July.

[hobbit709]

37. It's now the middle of March. why are they taking their time?

Could it be they can't prove anything yet.

[phleshdef]

41. His own defense requested delays in order to have his mental capacity evaluated...

...and for other things they are doing to try and build a defense for him. I imagine they are going to try and sell him as a mentally trouble individual, which is probably too if you look into some incidents that occurred before all of the leaking stuff. Aside from that, pre-trial is suppose to be in May, which is fine. Court marshalls of this nature typically take a little less than a year to get going.

[treestar]

88. Bad assumption. 1. Courts are often slow

Trial dates are often far off. 2. Sometimes it is the Defendant that wants the continuance. In fact that is more likely, the prosecution has to comply with the right to speedy trial. 3. The military can and does have stricter rules.

[gratuitous]

45. In spite of massive efforts to do this otherwise

Charges still aren't convictions. As the old gag goes, how many legs does a dog have if you call his tail a leg? Four. Just because you call his tail a leg doesn't make it a leg. Just because someone charged Manning with something doesn't make it true. But I'm sure that nobody in all of the Justice Department would e-e-ever make a charge that couldn't or wouldn't stick, just to put pressure on someone to confess. I mean, that would be, like, a total subversion of justice! And the department's very name is "justice," so it just couldn't happen!

[Name removed]

60. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EFerrari]

38. Yes, Manning allegedly embarrassed our elites by exposing their horrible behavior.

[Bragi]

42. By disgraceful, I presume you mean heroic?

There is nothing disgraceful about revealing information proving that one's country is guilty of war crimes. That is an act of true patriotic citizenship.

[phleshdef]

65. Heroes don't blindly leak any and every piece of classified info they can get their hands on...

...and then just leak it for the sake of leaking it, which is exactly what this irresponsible piece of shit did. He didn't even read the documents he leaked (he couldn't have, there were hundreds of thousands of them). He just put anything out there that he could get his hands on, regardless of the consequences it may have had for others whos names and actions were detailed in these documents.

A hero would have found specific pieces of information that exposed something truly evil and focused on exposing those deeds. Thats not what Manning did at all. And you know that as well as anyone else. Thats irresponsible, wreckless behavior that didn't take anyone else into consideration at all. No one thinking like an adult would have done something like that, let alone a "hero".

[EFerrari]

66. And we're so lucky he did. Today, India is having to confront evidence

of prisoner abuse and torture because of cablegate. cablegate exposed the corruption of Japan's nuclear power industry. It's a gift that will keep on giving for a long time. :)

[phleshdef]

69. It isn't that part of me doesn't find pleasure in a little "stick it to the man" action.

But that part of me is easily overruled by the adult part of my mind that can look at his actions and clearly see how irresponsible and wreckless they were and how he didn't consider the lives of others. If it wasn't for the fact that wikileaks is pretty good about filtering through documents they release in order to protect people, what he did could have had some serious repercussions in terms of innocent lives. Its like what they did to Valerie Plame times a thousand. Because of that, his actions will always be regarded as inconsiderate and irresponsible, not heroic.

[EFerrari]

75. But he did leak to Wikileaks and not to anyone else.

And exposing government bad faith and bad behavior isn't "sticking it to the man", it's the first step toward reform.

Maybe we should be mad at the Pentagon for promising to secure that network and then failing to do it. Why was all that stuff sitting around within the reach of, basically, teenagers? That's a lapse in judgment that dwarfs what Brad Manning did.

[phleshdef]

78. LOL. You basically just said "the Pentagon was asking for it by wearing that dress".

2 wrongs do not make a right. Manning was an intelligence officer who had access to these systems. He also took an oath that bound him to protect information like that.

If we want that kind of reform, it should be done within the rule of law. You can't justify the crimes that Manning committed simply based on the fact that some of what he leaks exposed wrongs themselves. I'm all for freedom of information. But it should be done in a calculated, responsible fashion. If thats what America wants, then America should elect an entire government that will willfully go through all the classified data we have, remove names to protect the innocent and then release it all to the public. Thats how a functional society works. It doesn't work by having its own soldiers go rogue without restraint.

[EFerrari]

81. The Pentagon is not the victim here.

And burying information about government crimes is not "protecting" anything but criminals.

When a society sees that its justice system is perverted and unjust, that society will begin to make self-corrections. It is chaotic and somewhat dysfunctional and where we seem to be at the moment.

[phleshdef]

82. In other words, the rule of law is only important to you when it entertains you.

[EFerrari]

85. No, I mean when the lawmakers themselves don't respect the law

and when justice is meted out unequally, a society will attempt to make corrections, like any system does.

[phleshdef]

87. Then make corrections through elections, not through rogue soldiers betraying their oath of duty...

...and blindly leaking classified information in order to discredit the government that said soldier is taking issue with.

[EFerrari]

91. .The oath is to the Constitution, not to government bad actors.

And as we have seen, elections are not handling this problem. I expect these acts of rebellion will only become more frequent until our government wakes up and smells the discontent.

[phleshdef]

96. The Oath is to many things.

I ... do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

[Luminous Animal]

152. Actually, you make corrections with elections, public protests, and civil disobedience.

According to you, there should have been no Underground Railroad, no labor strikes, no Women's Suffrage movement, no Pentagon Papers, and no anti-war protests.

Everyone should have waited until there was a critical mass of progressive citizens to elect reformers.

[Bragi]

68. His leaks were not indiscriminate

I suspect you know that if Manning had released only partial information, then pro-torture and war crimes apologists would then have claimed to media that exculpatory information was contained in all the material that wasn't released.

I also suspect you already know that he released everything he could access that might shed light on U.S war crimes, and turned it over to a whistleblower organization with credibility and a track record for careful disclosure of secret information such that no-one has ever been done harm as a result of material disclosed by them.

I think you know all that, yet you also persist in posting the standard talking point false drivel being used by the military to try to smear Manning.

So why do you keep saying things you know to be untrue?

[phleshdef]

73. Thats a lot of pure, unadulterated horse shit.

There is nothing that justifies dropping hundreds of thousands of classified documents to some foreign organization. Nothing. This kind of leaking was wrong when Cheney had it done to Valerie Plame. Its wrong on a scale thousands of time over when Manning did it. Manning acted like a fucking child with a chip on his shoulder. There was nothing noble in this.

[Bragi]

76. No, I was factual, you are just bombast /nt

[phleshdef]

80. Factual? You were just stating a bunch of bullshit opinions the same as myself.

Heres what is actually FACTUAL. Manning broke several laws and betrayed his own oath with his actions. Thats factual because what he did was in fact against many laws and his own oath in fact required him to protect information like this. Its also factual that he dropped all of these documents without even having the ability to give consideration to who may be effected by it and whether or not they deserved to be put in danger so he could have his 15 minutes of fame.

[Luminous Animal]

155. Releasing info to Wikileaks is no more indiscriminate than releasing info to the NY Times...

which has published classified info many times over the years. In fact, leaked classified information published in the Times was the basis for revealing Bush's illegal NSA spying on U.S. citizens.

[RaleighNCDUer]

165. Betrayed his oath?

I ... do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

...defend the CONSTITUTION...foreign AND DOMESTIC...true faith and allegiance to the same (i.e. the CONSTITUTION). The UCMJ REQUIRES him to not follow unlawful orders or cover up crimes.

Seems to me he was following his oath to the letter.

[stockholmer]

170. +1000

Manning, IMHO, is a hero, on this I will not back down.

[Luminous Animal]

146. Ooh! There is that scary word again... "foreign". What Cheney did was for his

his own empowerment and that of those who rule. His actions were an attempt to obscure access to information that we would need to give informed consent to where our government was leading us. Outing Plame was undemocratic.

What Manning did was to distribute information to the powerless so that we could be better prepared to give informed consent to those that govern.

Cheney attacked the weak to protect the powerful. Manning attacked the powerful to protect the weak.

[sabrina 1]

90. Reporting war crimes is now disgraceful in the opinion of

Democrats? I always understood that it was the right thing to do according to our principles and the oath taken by U.S. soldiers to defend and protect the Constitution, the law of the land, which means a U.S. soldier should NOT to ignore or participate in war crimes. I knew how much courage it would take to step forward considering the Bush policies on torture, but Manning did that. And he was ignored and the crimes continued and he was expected to participate in them.

He then made use of the whistle-blower law. I see nothing disgraceful about what he did. I only wish more people had the courage to do the same thing.

[phleshdef]

100. He absolutely did not make use of the whistle-blower law, which is why he virtually has no defense.

There are processes and regulations in place specifically regarding Military Whistle Blowers. Had he consulted a lawyer and went about this the right way, instead of the wreckless, half cocked way he went about it, he may actually be sitting comfortably at home right now. In order to do this the right way, he would have had to have brought his concerns and information regarding civilian casualties to a member of Congress or an Inspector General. Thats not what he did.

What he did was, is he dropped every piece of classified data he could get his hands on, a LOT of it that had absolutely NOTHING to do with his concerns, a LOT of it that didn't even expose any wrong doing but just exposed personal conversations and personal information about public officials. He didn't discriminate, he just put it all out there, regardless of consequences. Thats why he is disgraceful.

[sabrina 1]

106. Daniel Ellsberg disagrees with you.

I'll take his word for it, if you don't mind.

Secondly you have no idea, nor does anyone else whether he was responsible for leaking the Embassy Cables. Most observers believe he was not.

What he may have released, and we don't even know that yet as there has been no trial, no evidence, so far, are the Iraq and Afghanistan War Logs and the video of the murder of two Reuters Journalists and several innocent civilians.

Those leaks show that war crimes, especially the one he first complained about, were taking place.

I would like to know why his superiors, who knew he was telling the truth, chose to ignore the war crimes he reported. Have any of them been prosecuted yet? They swore to defend the Constitution and clearly did not do so. Yet, so far, none of them have been charged with any crime.

[phleshdef]

107. Then he never did one iota of research on how the Military Whistle Blower Protection Act works.

To hell with Ellsberg. I dare you to actually challenge what I said regarding whistleblower protections for military personel. You don't get to cop out of it with name dropping and not backing up one iota of what you are asserting.

There is a process for military whistleblowers and it involves protected communications with a member of Congress or an Inspector General. It does not apply to attempting to anonymously leak a bunch of document to a foreign organization. YOU CAN NOT DISPROVE THIS, ITS FACT.

[sabrina 1]

109. I'm sure he was fully aware of those 'protections'. Are you serious?

Just who in this government would it have been safe for him to go to? Don't your know that whistle-blowers are being prosecuted even more under this administration than ever before?

He wasn't foolish enough to trust a U.S. news organization, he probably saw how the NYT eg, sat on so many stories when the government asked them to.

And having gone to his superiors and seen their reaction, he knew damn well that it was a waste of time to tell anyone in this government what he told them. He would be exactly where he is now had he done that, only WE THE PEOPLE would not know what we now know.

Why do you think Wikileaks was created in the first place? Because there was no safe place for whistle-blowers to go anymore. And that is the beauty of it.

Governments should not be allowed to cover up crimes under the guise of the usual 'national security' claim. When they do wrong they should be exposed.

Maybe now that they all know they cannot count on keeping their dark secrets anymore, not only because of Wikileaks, but because people across the world are uncovering those secrets in Egypt, in Tunisia and elsewhere it will happen also, as the people refuse to allow governments to act like Empires or Kingdoms anymore, they will start behaving themselves so there are no crimes they need to cover up, like torture and other war crimes.

[phleshdef]

123. Bottom line. He didn't take it to Congress or an Inspector General and thus is not qualified...

...for whistleblower protections. PERIOD. Thats the law. I don't care what reasons you imagine for his wreckless behavior. They don't matter. The LAW says he has to do it the way I detailed or otherwise, its illegal. No ifs, ands or buts.

[Luminous Animal]

154. Bottom line. Maybe he didn't trust anyone in government. In my book, if Ellsberg is a hero....

so is Manning. And in my book, Ellsberg is a hero.

[phleshdef]

125. Another reasons your shitty excuses don't make sense, he could have taken all this to Kucinich...

...or Russ Feingold or Al Franken or Bernie Sanders or John Kerry or hell, even Ron Paul. He could have shared the same information he illegally stole and leaked with any one of those members of Congress who are likely to be sympathetic and gotten the information out there just as effectively. Had he done so, we likely wouldn't be havin this conversation because that would have made him a whistle blower who used the RULE OF LAW to achieve his cause and thus really would be protected, whereas he currently is not, in any way, shape or form. There is no excuse for the idiotic way he handled it. He dug his own fucking grave here.

[Luminous Animal]

153. Indeed. Some how, some way a member of the U.S. Congress was supposed to

vet all 250,000 documents and enter them into the Congressional Record. Hahahahaha!!!! Did you know that Ellsberg approached several anti-war members of Congress but was unsuccessful? Perhaps the leaker of these cable was smart enough to learn from history.

Manning (allegedly) handled it (and subsequently Wikileaks) remarkably intelligently. Wikileaks offers anonymity to whistle blowers and Wikileaks exploited the vast research capabilities of the main stream media.

[phleshdef]

194. So in other words, fuck the rule of law you are so boldly insinuating you care about..

The details of why don't matter anyway. Thats not what this conversation you chimed in deals with. It deals with whether or not he has whistle blower protections or not. And per the way the laws are structured, he does NOT.

[TorchTheWitch]

171. that still wouldn't give him whistleblower protection

It isn't just how you disseminate the information, it's the information that you take to begin with. In order to be even considered a whistleblower at all regardless of how you disseminate the information, the information you take must show evidence of a crime or other serious wrongdoing and the reason for your stealing and disseminating that information is for the purpose of exposing such evidence of a crime or other serious wrongdoing.

As you mentioned before, taking the diplomatic cables in particular disqualifies him for whistleblower status by any objective consideration. Though some of the information he stole did show evidence of crimes or other serious wrongdoing, the vast bulk of it did not. Not only that, he can't use the excuse that his purpose was to expose such crimes/wrongdoings because he took such an incredible amount of information that he could not have known himself what all it contained. Because a fraction of the information he stole just happened to expose crimes or other serious wrongdoing doesn't give him whistleblower protection because a) most of what he stole did NOT expose any crime or serious wrongdoing, and b) the sheer amount of what he stole makes it obvious that he himself could not even have known what information would become exposed and so cannot claim his purpose in stealing the information was for the purpose of exposing crimes or other serious wrongdoing.

Example: If I work for company X and stole all their client files a fraction of which exposed some sort of crime or wrongdoing while the majority of the information does not, I can't have whistleblower status because a) what I stole did not all contain evidence of a crime or wrongdoing, and b) my reason for stealing them could not have been for the purpose of exposing any crime or wrongdoing.

As for Ellsberg's opinion - he knows how very different his case was than Manning's. Though what Ellsberg stole was a vast amount of information, it was a single study that he worked on it himself and knew that the totality of it is what exposed crimes and wrongdoing. He also knows he stole it solely for the purpose of exposing those crimes and wrongdoing. He voluntarily turned himself into authorities, admitted his having stolen the study and was prepared to face the consequences. He was never cleared of espionage and was only freed because the judge declared a mistrial due to several "irregularities" in the case on the part of the prosecution. The government blew up their own case against him thereby making it virtually impossible to try the case again.

Ellsberg can now say whatever the hell he wants, but he himself knows better than anyone that the circumstances of his case are entirely different than that of Manning's and are incomparable. Not only did Ellsberg's actions qualify him for whistleblower protections that we have today, the only reason he was not convicted of espionage (which he accepted and was willing to face the consequences of) was because of the government shitting on their own case thereby causing a mistrial and the inability to re-try the case... had the government not done so he'd be sitting in jail right now with the belief that he was deserving of his cell. His actions and belief that he was indeed guilty as well as his acceptance to face the consequences of those actions belie his current opinion concerning Manning's case which is incomparable to his own. Frankly, if he believes that he was guilty of espionage for his actions which do conform to the particulars of whistleblower protection we have now and accepted the consequences of being guilty of espionage, how can he really believe otherwise for Manning's case when Manning doesn't even qualify for whistleblower protection in the first place?

[phleshdef]

198. This is probably the most informative, bullshit-free post on this subject that I've seen.

Thank you for that.

[sabrina 1]

195. Sure he could. And Kucinich would have been as successful

at getting these war crimes dealt with as he has been just getting in to see Manning.

Your being ridiculous. Kucinich was threatened with Sanctions, by Congress, including by members of his own party, for merely telling the public that about the oil clause in the Iraqi documents supposedly signing over control to the Iraqi people.

Keep dreaming that you live in a democracy that cares about human rights.

Keep thinking, as we all once did, that war criminals would be brought to justice once we got a Democratic Majority.

I live in the real world, and apparently so did Manning.

It is laughable to think that a country that claims we cannot deal with war crimes because we 'must look forward' would have been thrilled that a U.S. soldier was attempting to provide PROOF of those crimes and done anything about it.

You must not be familiar with the many cases of the mysterious 'suicides' of U.S. personel who attempted to report corruption in Iraq.

I think Manning would have committed 'suicide' had he even attempted to talk to Congress.

[phleshdef]

196. "He could've but... blah, blah, blah, excuses for not following whistle blower laws, blah, blah"

I hope now that you are making excuses for why he didn't follow the procedures for military whistle blowing, you are now acknowledging the cold hard fact that he doesn't qualify as one and thus is not protected by it.

[sabrina 1]

201. Of course he qualifies as one. Just like Daniel Ellsberg.

There were people like you back then making similar claims about Ellsberg, but the court saw it differently. You should read that court's majority opinion some day.

Of course Manning will not have access to the regular court system, so it's unlikely he will receive a fair trial.

But since you acknowledge that crimes were committed, crimes he tried to report, have any of those involved in those crimes been arrested yet?

You claim that if only Congress had known, if only Manning had told them, everything would have been handled according to the law and he would be a hero.

But Congress DOES know. No matter how they found out, they now KNOW from the War Logs that crimes were committed, and yet, not a thing has been done about it. Why have they not done their duty?

I think that proves my point.

Congress isn't interested, to them, the messenger is the criminal. And if he had gone to them, as other whistle-blowers have done, there is a good chance he would be exactly where he is only none of us would know anything about him or about the crimes he revealed. If he was lucky.

[Kalun D]

138. Crimes

Manning's actions?

you mean where he leaked evidence of the crimes of this and the previous administration?

no wonder they don't want to give him a real trial

they are keeping the evidence of the crimes of fascist pigs hidden.

[phleshdef]

200. Nothing he leaked has thus far indicated any crimes by this administration at all.

You shouldn't speak on the nature of what he leaked if you've no clue what he actually leaked. Diplomats talking shit about each other is not a crime.

[kooljerk666]

181. HIS ACTIONS MEAN NOTHING!!

Hey, the rule of law & treaties against torture............................


phleshdef is a right wing auth type

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_personality

Get the fuck out of here & go get cash your fox news check!

[phleshdef]

199. Such a simple minded load of nonsense, barely worth responding to.

[kooljerk666]

203. don't waste your brain cells..........

authoritarian DLC crapola types have nothing worthwhile to say. It is the false equivalence hoisted by tools like Beck & O'Reilly.

DLC centrist leadership are just as much the enemy as yje GOP, Tea party KKK ect. The current administration is here to help the rich & anyone who thinks otherwise is ill informed.

You sound like a paid propagandist, like a Goebbels employee.

[phleshdef]

205. Blah, blah, DLC, blah, blah, corporatist, blah, blah, more buzzwords without context...

...look at me everyone, I can drop buzzwords a million miles a minute! Look at me and how liberal I am with the... buzzwords... and the blah blah.

And that pretty much sums up your post.

I'm just expressing my own opinion. Ideologically speaking, I'm damn near socialist, the real kind. But I don't throw it in everyone's face to try and win popularity contests on internet message boards, which seems to be more your bag. You want a real conversation, then try some real critical thought instead of this lemming, poseur ass bullshit where you namedrop every negative political term and acronymn that you can think of and hope something sticks. Its not winning you any arguments, its just exposing you for not really having any original ideas and having no clue as to what it is you are even trying to discuss.

[lumberjack_jeff]

32. She's not complicit with the administration, she's an employee of it.

This is bullshit. She's doing the bidding of the boss. Blame him.

[EFerrari]

39. Big Tent Democrat says he did just that in an earlier post.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[markpkessinger]

191. It's a long-standing practice in government...

...That if a major executive branch official cannot support a policy in good conscience, he or she resigns. By staying on, Mrs. Clinton give her tacid support to the policy.

[readmoreoften]

52. +1

[donheld]

62. The buck stops where?

[Autumn]

115. 600 feet away from the White House. n/t

[krabigirl]

70. K & r

[drokhole]

72. Same goes for the Ray McGovern incident.

[Ichingcarpenter]

74. the Ray McGovern incident said a lot about her

Shame on you...Ms Clinton.... shame on you

Now where did I hear that before?

[lamp_shade]

92. Some believe he's a hero. Some believed Benedict Arnold was a hero. Hmmmm.

[Hissyspit]

103. Oh, brother.

[TK421]

112. Curious...who thought Benedict Arnold was a hero?

[Ikonoklast]

133. Tories.

[TK421]

150. I know that...see reply below n/t

[karynnj]

141. He was a war hero before he was a traitor

[TK421]

149. yes, I knew that, but I thought there was someone here who hailed him as some hero

[20score]

130. He is being tortured because he informed the American public

about crimes being committed in their name. And he didn't do it for personal gain.

He is a hero.

It's a shame more people don't realize that.

History will judge them harshly, and rightly so.

[DURHAM D]

93. This is why DU is so entertaining...

If Hillary had made the exact same comments that Crowley did about Manning everyone who is currently calling for her head (because she accepted Crowley's resignation letter) would still be calling for her head because she made a statement in opposition to WH policy.

love you guys...

carry on

[tpsbmam]

98. Wrong. Most people here would be cheering her for standing up for what is

right and good. I'm in the Manning is a hero camp but even if I weren't and I felt he was wrong for doing what he did, I would still believe....KNOW that torture is WRONG and we ARE torturing him. And THAT is what Clinton would have been standing up for without any judgment about guilt/innocence.

Those who are okey-dokey with the way he's been treated do not have my respect. I can accept that we all don't agree about the nature of his actions, but we damn well should all be on the same side when it comes to torture. Apparently we're not. Pretty pathetic.

[Modern_Matthew]

111. Torture is fine when it's occurring under a "Democratic" administration. nt

:patriot:

[frylock]

142. torture, war, civilian casualties, tax breaks for the rich..

i could go on and on as to what's all good now that a dem is in charge. but not to fear! all those things will be frowned upon yet again once we have a president gingrich. or palin. or romney. or..... awwww shit. i lose track of all the boogeymen that are thrown in our face once we dare level any criticism of the obama admin.

[karynnj]

188. No, she would be a hero here, but would be criticized by the right

as supporting a traitor.

The fact is that she is one of the very few people in the administration who could have spoken out with impunity. Now, I would guess that she would have spoken in different words - maybe saying that his treatment was counterproductive to our world wide image or that his treatment was not consistent with our values. Consider that Biden dissented on the Afghan war strategy and he remained in good standing with the administration.

Like Biden, Clinton has the luxury of being able to POLITELY speak of differences in her opinion and Obama's - especially when they do NOT involve foreign policy and when speaking to Americans, not to foreign leaders. Remember the outrage over the Saturday Massacre in the Nixon case - when Richardson quit rather than fire Cox. Imagine if it were someone as well known, with her own large group of supporters, like Clinton. (Not even considering that she would also have the support of many who before rejected her as too centrist.) One think that was certain from the moment he nominated her, is that though a SoS works at the pleasure of the President, she was uniquely unfireable.

It also seems that the story was overblown. There are accounts saying that he did not have to stand in the morning and that they found him a garment - that could not be used for suicide, but preserved modesty - though it is unclear how quickly.

The REAL problem between the administration (including Obama and Clinton) and many here and on FDL, is a wide difference in what each thinks Manning is guilty of. The most extreme on FDL and many here think he is guilty of nothing - and deserves an award. The administration has gone as far as charging him with aiding and abetting the enemy. If he were convicted of that, he would be called a traitor.

I do think the administration needs an emissary to the left, who can define just what Manning's treatment has been. If there are things that shouldn't have happened that they regret - they should say so and explain. Mannings' lawyer's charges of mistreatment should be answered - especially if they are overblown.

[truedelphi]

99. And people here still wonder why so many of us here

Supported an unknown candidate for President rather than this person, whose embrace of so much related to criminal behavior and her devotion to war is sickening.

Of course, embracing an unknown, whose message of "hope" has turned out to be a slogan so similar to Margaret Thatcher when she ran for PM so many years before. No wonder his deeds are not dissimilar to hers.

Our Corporate Sponsored "Free Elections" only offer us Corporate Sponsored Candidates.

[gaspee]

104. And if she had

Disagreed with Obama's stance publicly, she'd be pilloried for being disloyal. Clinton can't win - pretty typical to what women in the public eye face every day. Bottom line, as Obama fans like to point out - he won, she lost. Sorry, you can't blame her for his decisions. Any reason to bash her is good though, right? I thought we were past this crap.

[Kurovski]

105. You made this a feminist issue?

Fail.

Some people don't like the torture. You will have to accept that fact, because that's what the issue is.

Some people actually have views on ethics and such, and are not strictly supporters of a tribe, or a team, or however some folks view partisan politics.

[Liquorice]

144. I agree. If she had disagreed, there would have been at most a muted

positive response here, and at worst, she would have been blamed for disloyalty. This situation is not her responsibility; It's on the president. If the situation were reversed and Hillary had won, EVERYONE here would have blamed her for the situation, even if Obama was in the position of SoS and hadn't said a word against the guy's resignation.

[trud]

179. gaspee - Clinton could win

She could resign, as Powell should have done.

And while I can't blame her for Obama's decisions, I can blame her for "following orders." Not only that, but I didn't detect the slightest twinge of conscience in her behavior.

I voted for Obama because I didn't want a DLC candidate like Hill. More fool me, because that's exactly whom I helped elect.

[iwishiwas]

185. No, it is obvious we are not

not past this crap.

[Modern_Matthew]

110. This administration will not stand for employees speaking their mind. nt

[slay]

117. Obama's "transparent and open government" can be added to his list of lies

like how the DEA would not interfere anymore with state's medical marijuana laws - and then just the other day HUGE raid. I do not trust the Obama admin at all.

Mannning is a hero who spread truth.

Go kill people in Iraq - get a medal. Tell the truth about the USA - go to jail for life, possibly the death penalty. Unreal. Where are we? What country are we living in? What century is this? :banghead:

[Liquorice]

118. The buck stops with Obama. nt

[DeSwiss]

136. K&R

I refuse to support any candidate for the presidency who violates the Constitution. Period.

[Faryn Balyncd]

137. +1

[bertman]

139. REC #115. nt

[orbitalman]

143. Kpete... speaking for me too ! n/t

[webDude]

145. MOST disgraceful? Give it time,...

[Name removed]

147. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AlabamaLibrul]

161. Don't worry.

There will be many more.

[McCamy Taylor]

164. Um...so Hillary is in charge? I thought Obama was president.

[Mimosa]

167. Yes. The Secretary of State is unlikely to act unilaterally. n/t

[PatrynXX]

169. Now I know why I didn't vote for her.

Was afraid someone would be able to pull her strings. alas I was right. Althought he President does have the right to pull her strings was the wrong strings. Peter Gabriel come up for a string video? haha.

[Buddha2B]

172. I've never liked her

It has nothing to do with her gender. I just don't like her as a person. Too many creepy vibes from her.

I feel she works for the 'powers that be' and not the people.

She's a 'Ruler' not a 'People's Rep'.

[kooljerk666]

180. I have hated Bill & her since NAFTA & "welfare reform"

I am not sure if this is her worst moment.

That little smirk on her face when the 73 yo vet was beaten down by her goons was pretty good.

What I like about France is they killed royalty & the ruling class after their revolution, screw w/ French workers & it all shuts down personally I like seeing police stations burn.

Americas constitution was written by rich white guys to keep white guys & the rich on top.

I am not sure how i am gonna vote, I am in PA and went straight dem & that did not work out too well (gerlach PA6-Retard).

I kind of hope if Bachmann &or Palin become Prez we can finally have the civil war we need & grind the rich & their kids & their dogs too, into Soylent effffing Green (TM).

Whenever I am near any rich or well healed folks I tell them my ideas & they look scared & run.

I do my best to egg on all types hoping 1 madman can start a revolution.

Until the fascist ruling class are fearing for their wrenched lives, nothing will change.

Pres. Obama & his outlaw gang are worse than Bush, they just look nicer & more polished.

BTW marines & soldiers who are fucking with Manning, don't u know we will find you out & post your faces names & addresses all over the Net. You best knock it off!

edit for coherence & clarity spelling ect

[INdemo]

182. Is there anything else the Obama administration can do

that could confirm this administration is as bad if not worse than Bush Jr's..

[customerserviceguy]

183. As I said when this story initially unfolded

Manning made Hillary look bad in front of the world, he was going to pay for that somehow...

[Jakes Progress]

190. Keep in mind where the order came from to fire.

WH

[xchrom]

186. well i blew my gasket over the DNA request -- but your point is well taken. nt

[harmonicon]

187. Oh, I think openly supporting an anti-democratic coup in Honduras was the most disgraceful.

This is up there, but not at that level yet.

[JJW]

189. Shame on you, Hillary Clinton

Shame on you, Barack Obama. Shame on you, Secretary Gates.

[Jakes Progress]

192. She should have defended him. Obama shouldn't have ordered the firing.

A noble person would have defied her craven boss and threatened to quit. But let's not forget the boss. So all of the hype during the primaries about who was a better person come to this. Barack and Hillary are both cowardly, inept, bough-and-paid-for politicians.

Back at the beginning of the primaries we kept patting ourselves on the back for the depth of our bench for presidential candidates. Kind of rings hollow now, doesn't it?

[LWolf]

204. Why would she not be complicit? He's her boss. nt

[William769]

206. Good on you kpete

When I posted on this when it happened and my dissappointment in Hillary, I was lambasted.