RSN April 14 Fundraising
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Greenwald writes: "The repressive treatment of Bradley Manning is one of the disgraces of Obama's first term, and highlights many of the dynamics shaping his presidency."

A formal UN investigation denounced his treatment as
A formal UN investigation denounced his treatment as "cruel and inhuman." (photo: Cliff Owen/AP)



Bradley Manning: A Tale of Liberty Lost in America

By Glenn Greenwald, Guardian UK

02 December 12

 

ver the past two and a half years, all of which he has spent in a military prison, much has been said about Bradley Manning, but nothing has been heard from him. That changed on Thursday, when the 23-year-old US army private accused of leaking classified documents to WikiLeaks testified at his court martial proceeding about the conditions of his detention.

The oppressive, borderline-torturous measures to which he was subjected, including prolonged solitary confinement and forced nudity, have been known for some time. A formal UN investigation denounced those conditions as "cruel and inhuman". President Obama's state department spokesman, retired air force colonel PJ Crowley, resigned after publicly condemning Manning's treatment. A prison psychologist testified this week that Manning's conditions were more damaging than those found on death row, or at Guantánamo Bay.

Still, hearing the accused whistleblower's description of this abuse in his own words viscerally conveyed its horror. Reporting from the hearing, the Guardian's Ed Pilkington quoted Manning: "If I needed toilet paper I would stand to attention and shout: 'Detainee Manning requests toilet paper!''" And: "I was authorised to have 20 minutes sunshine, in chains, every 24 hours." Early in his detention, Manning recalled, "I had pretty much given up. I thought I was going to die in this eight by eight animal cage."

The repressive treatment of Bradley Manning is one of the disgraces of Obama's first term, and highlights many of the dynamics shaping his presidency. The president not only defended Manning's treatment but also, as commander-in-chief of the court martial judges, improperly decreed Manning's guilt when he asserted in an interview that he "broke the law".

Worse, Manning is charged not only with disclosing classified information, but also the capital offence of "aiding the enemy", for which the death penalty can be imposed (military prosecutors are requesting "only" life in prison). The government's radical theory is that, although Manning had no intent to do so, the leaked information could have helped al-Qaida, a theory that essentially equates any disclosure of classified information – by any whistleblower, or a newspaper – with treason.

Whatever one thinks of Manning's alleged acts, he appears the classic whistleblower. This information could have been sold for substantial sums to a foreign government or a terror group. Instead he apparently knowingly risked his liberty to show them to the world because – he said when he believed he was speaking in private – he wanted to trigger "worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms".

Compare this aggressive prosecution of Manning to the Obama administration's vigorous efforts to shield Bush-era war crimes and massive Wall Street fraud from all forms of legal accountability. Not a single perpetrator of those genuine crimes has faced court under Obama, a comparison that reflects the priorities and values of US justice.

Then there's the behaviour of Obama's loyalists. Ever since I first reported the conditions of Manning's detention in December 2010, many of them not only cheered that abuse but grotesquely ridiculed concerns about it. Joy-Ann Reid, a former Obama press aide and now a contributor on the progressive network MSNBC, spouted sadistic mockery in response to the report: "Bradley Manning has no pillow?????" With that, she echoed one of the most extreme rightwing websites, RedState, which identically mocked the report: "Give Bradley Manning his pillow and blankie back."

As usual, the US establishment journalists have enabled the government every step of the way. Despite holding themselves out as adversarial watchdogs, nothing provokes their animosity more than someone who effectively challenges government actions.

Typifying this mentality was a CNN interview on Thursday night with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange conducted by Erin Burnett. It was to focus on newly released documents revealing secret efforts by US officials to pressure financial institutions to block WikiLeaks' funding after the group published classified documents allegedly leaked by Manning, a form of extra-legal punishment that should concern everyone, particularly journalists.

But the CNN host was completely uninterested in the dangerous acts of her own government. Instead she repeatedly tried to get Assange to condemn the press policies of Ecuador, a tiny country that – quite unlike the US – exerts no influence beyond its borders. To the mavens of the US watchdog press, Assange and Manning are enemies to be scorned because they did the job that the US press corps refuses to do: namely, bringing transparency to the bad acts of the US government and its allies around the world.

Bradley Manning has bestowed the world with multiple vital benefits. But as his court martial finally reaches its conclusion, one likely to result in the imposition of a long prison term, it appears his greatest gift is this window into America's political soul.

 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+115 # sean1303 2012-12-02 11:53
Bradley Manning is to Obama what Wen Ho Lee was to Clinton: The parakeet in the mine that shows that you have only to scratch one layer down through the "liberal" facade to find the massive corporate plutocrat substance of the administration.
 
 
+131 # jmar 2012-12-02 11:54
What has happened to innocent until proven guilty?
 
 
+146 # lisamoskow 2012-12-02 12:09
Manning is a hero.

Shame on this government for the torture of him.

This story, maybe more than any story, is a testament to what corruption and hypocrisy this government embodies.
 
 
-153 # Rain17 2012-12-02 13:22
He's no hero. He released tons of classified information. Although I would still disagree with you, had he just released the information he thought he had issues about, you would have a better argument. But, if he really had concerns, Manning should have reported the matter to the IG within the Army and the DOD. There are internal procedures to follow.

You may not agree with the Iraq war or the foreign policy decisions of the US government, but that doesn't give Manning the right to break the law. He is no hero or martyr. He seems like a confused, possibly mentally ill person. He didn't release the info for noble reason.

The final point is that the release of the information probably compromised the sources who were working with the US government. And some of them, if not many of them, likely met their end in a horrible fashion. It's the same type of damage that occurred when the Plame outing happened.

I'm sorry, but I just don't buy into the worship of Bradley Manning. He is no hero.
 
 
+128 # mdhome 2012-12-02 15:01
'It's the same type of damage that occurred when the Plame outing happened. '

When Dick Cheny has spent as much time under the same conditions as Manning I will believe in a fairness of prosecution. Obviously, there is a different form of justice for the little guy in the trenches than the A$$holes in the Bush administration. 2 1/2 years of torture? for someone who has not been convicted of anything? I am sorry , I see that as cruel and unusual treatment.
 
 
+64 # engelbach 2012-12-02 16:20
"Worship"? Please. He risked everything to expose government malfeasance, which was protected by laws made by ... the government.

"Probably" is not evidence. And there is none that any harm was done by the release of the documents, aside from the government's embarrassment.

Continue to favor less government transparency and more lies.
 
 
+37 # aitengri 2012-12-02 20:53
May I have permission to "rain" upon your statement? Even if I totally agreed with you, you are missing the whole point of the article, which concerns his treatment. Not his worship, nor his innocence or guilt.
 
 
+16 # David Heizer 2012-12-03 20:07
Quoting Rain17:
f he really had concerns, Manning should have reported the matter to the IG within the Army and the DOD. There are internal procedures to follow.

And what do you do when the entire system is engaging in illegal and immoral behavior, under the cover of document classification, and the coverup goes right up to the Oval Office? This was the same dilemma confronting Daniel Ellsberg. When the government itself has gone criminal, your sunny advice to go through channels becomes ludicrous.
 
 
+2 # Anarchist 23 2012-12-05 22:38
Yeah-and that goes for Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Claus Von Stauffenberg and Admiral Canaris who tried to overthrow that democratically elected leader Adolph Hitler. By all means let's respect the law, even when it condemns millions of innocents to death or a life in Hell.
 
 
+123 # fredboy 2012-12-02 12:10
His ongoing punishment is designed to serve as a warning--if you serve in the military, keep your mouth shut. Imagine what so many veterans have seen? Yet they are afraid to speak up. Pretty much displaces that "home of the brave" notion, doesn't it?
 
 
+67 # R. Indignation 2012-12-02 13:19
Even if you are a private citizen, this serves as a warning make no mistake.
 
 
+67 # mdhome 2012-12-02 15:02
UNLESS you are DICK effin CHENY.
 
 
+146 # DPM 2012-12-02 13:39
It is getting to be the same in civilian life. Who's watching? Who's listening? Steal a dollar. Go to jail. Steal billions and get a bonus! Rob a store. Bye, bye! Rob pension funds. Get a bonus! Lie about a 20$ deduction to the IRS and, oops, you're in trouble. Lie to the entire country, in front of congress, get a bonus! Unscrupulous political drug user. Retire to a corporate CEO's position. Homeless junkie? Well, just stay that way! Makes you proud to be an American, doesn't it?
 
 
+54 # mdhome 2012-12-02 15:03
I wanted to give you 100 thumbs up!
 
 
-94 # Rain17 2012-12-02 13:40
When you work with classified information there are multiple nondisclosure statements you sign. You agree not to improperly disclose it to parties and persons without the need to know. The nondisclosure statements clearly stipulate what the penalties are for doing so. Manning knew all of this when signed the paperwork.
 
 
+66 # pbbrodie 2012-12-02 15:35
Using your non-logic, no matter what Bradley Manning might have discovered our government doing in our names, using blatant hyperbole, lets say the Holocaust, he should have remained silent because he had agreed to not "improperly disclose' the information, prior to being aware of just how horrible this information was? You make absolutely no sense what-so-ever. Bradley Manning is every bit the hero for revealing the things our government does in our names that are reprehensible, at best.
 
 
-11 # JackB 2012-12-04 18:36
You don't have the slightest clue of what the entire issue is about. It is about him making secrets public. You think the information should be public. What are you unique qualifications to make that decision? Let me answer for you. You are entitled to your opinion. So is Manning.

BUT

Manning went one step further. He ACTUALLY released the information. How the hell can you seriously argue that an Army private is qualified to determine what secret information should be made public? Are you mad? What can you point to that even hints he gave a moments thought to what effect it could have on this country?

He is a traitor.
 
 
+7 # engelbach 2012-12-05 07:34
When one discovers evidence of wrongdoing, it doesn't matter if one is an army private or the king: one has a right -- no, an OBLIGATION -- to make it public.

I'm quite certain that Manning knew that his information would be a bombshell to people about the malfeasance of their government.

We're all qualified to recognize crimes when we seen them, even by those highest in power.

No, he's not a traitor. He didn't betray his country -- he enlightened it.
 
 
+1 # Doubter 2012-12-08 17:17
And who are you to imply that an Army private is unqualified to posses a conscience?
I guess you think Generals do...
 
 
-3 # JackB 2012-12-08 21:26
I neither said nor implied it.

You are obviously a liberal. You made up a fact & immediately judged someone on your made-up fact.

I am willing to assume Manning has a conscience. However I don't care one way or the other. He released secret documents without authorization. He did it without the slightest regard to what it might do to this country & its ability to function in international relations. He gave the information to someone who does not have the slightest interest in the well-being of this country.

Bradley Manning is a traitor. You folks can dredge up all the righteous BS you want & fill the pages with thumbs-up attaboys but when all is said & done the kid betrayed his country.
 
 
0 # engelbach 2012-12-09 09:19
"He gave the information to someone who does not have the slightest interest in the well-being of this country."

On the contrary, it's clear from the mission of WikiLeaks that Assange and company are very much concerned with what happens to all countries -- meaning the people of those countries and not their corrupt leaders.

To paraphrase Woody Guthrie, this land is your land and my land, and not the land of the ruling class and their military-indust rial complex.
 
 
+64 # Doubter 2012-12-02 15:53
What you write simply confirms Bradley Manning's true integrity, patriotism and loyalty to his country; not to his corrupt government. You also state the citizens have no "need to know" what their "owners" are up to. You are either deluded or a government conspirator!
I assume that if you discovered your precious gov't was about to euthanize half the population you would chant: "My government, right or wrong!"
 
 
+69 # engelbach 2012-12-02 16:21
Yes, he knew it. He knew what risks he was taking.

And that's why he's a hero.
 
 
-58 # JackB 2012-12-02 21:00
I'm a vet. What is it you think I have seen? Obviously you're mot a vet or you wouldn't be asking the question.

Just curious. What is it that makes the people on this board think the punk was entitled to vote himself the gatekeeper of American secrets?

The punk gave away American secrets. He is not a whistle blower. He is a traitor.
 
 
0 # Anarchist 23 2012-12-05 22:41
So 'Scooter' Libby, who uncovered the ID of one of our covert operatives in the CIA is what? Apparently he did not suffer for it, even when there are quite harsh laws against it.
 
 
+2 # engelbach 2012-12-06 11:00
Not my secrets, and I'm an American.

Ruiling class secrets: information that was being kept from us because it would expose wrongdoing by the government.

We're all gatekeepers of the truth, soldier. It's what protects us from tyranny.
 
 
-150 # df312 2012-12-02 12:14
Sorry, no sympathy here. He's no whistle-blower. What he did was non-specific and indiscriminate. Vandalism at best, treason at worst.
 
 
-97 # Rain17 2012-12-02 13:29
I agree with you but some people here just don't want to believe that.
 
 
+2 # Anarchist 23 2012-12-05 22:42
Quoting Rain17:
I agree with you but some people here just don't want to believe that.

Some people here have a finer moral sense than you all do, apparently.
 
 
+110 # Dr. Amy L. Beam 2012-12-02 13:33
I suggest you read the volumes of criminal acts described in the material he released. Are you ignorant or being paid to put such comments online?
 
 
-27 # JackB 2012-12-03 07:40
You have completely misunderstood what this is all about. A disgruntled Army private took it upon himself to publicize US secrets. Do you Honest-to-God think the gatekeeper for American secrets should be a disgruntled Army private?

Because you don't like some of the things in the released documents you have decided what he did was good. What if the contents of the documents were secrets of things you approve? Would he still be a wonderful person?

There are traitors in jail for giving away state secrets for money. Manning did it because he was ticked off. Different motive - same crime.
 
 
+14 # David Heizer 2012-12-03 20:21
Please give some supporting evidence that he was "disgruntled" and "ticked off". I have read nothing to date to suggest this to be the case.

On the other hand, I HAVE seen "Collateral Murder" (the original impetus for Manning's crisis of conscience); it is truly sickening, and the system that promotes and supports that kind of depravity does not deserve to stay hidden safely out of sight, any more than the atrocities of Viet Nam did.

And yes, I want EVERY member of the government to be the moral "gatekeeper" of what the country should know about what evils are perpetrated upon the innocent in their name.
 
 
-5 # JackB 2012-12-04 19:00
Start with wikipedia.
 
 
+4 # dickbd 2012-12-05 13:10
Quoting JackB:
You have completely misunderstood what this is all about. A disgruntled Army private took it upon himself to publicize US secrets. Do you Honest-to-God think the gatekeeper for American secrets should be a disgruntled Army private?

[quote name="JackB"]You have completely misunderstood what this is all about. A disgruntled Army private took it upon himself to publicize US secrets. Do you Honest-to-God think the gatekeeper for American secrets should be a disgruntled Army private?

Because you don't like some of the things in the released documents you have decided what he did was good. What if the contents of the documents were secrets of things you approve? Would he still be a wonderful person?

There are traitors in jail for giving away state secrets for money. Manning did it because he was ticked off. Different motive - same crime.


Can you think of anything good that shouldn't be released? Come on. We've got to get away from this secrecy in government. There's nothing like a little sunshine to eliminate chicanery, unjust actions, mass murders, and other villainy. And if we don't oppose it, we support it. But the key is that we have to know about it.
 
 
+112 # DPM 2012-12-02 13:48
O.k. You feel he did something wrong, terribly wrong. Even treasonous. I think you are entitled to your opinion. But, seriously, is the government's treatment of him what we have become? Should we also be burning him with cigarettes and shocking him with electricity? Why not? Just how low should we go? Remember. If we complacently allow our government that kind of leeway in one place, it may soon be "playing in a 'theater' near you".
 
 
+7 # JackB 2012-12-03 07:49
I agree. Unfortunately his treatment has become an issue that some are trying to balance against his crime. A sort of - they cancel each other out argument.

IF he was mishandled then those who committed the act(s) should be punished & precautions should be taken to insure that whatever happened (if something actually did happen) cannot be repeated. I think what he did was reprehensible but whatever punishment he receives must come from a court of law after (if) he is convicted. At no point should jailers ever be allowed to become judge & jury.
 
 
-84 # Joeconserve 2012-12-02 14:00
Right on, df312!!!
 
 
+58 # Phlippinout 2012-12-02 14:45
HES A HERO
 
 
+51 # mdhome 2012-12-02 15:05
What do you have in mind for Dick Cheny for the Valerie Plame disclosure??
 
 
+53 # engelbach 2012-12-02 16:23
Of course he's a whistle blower. Look at the light he shed on government misdeeds.

Look up the definition..

You also don't know the definition of treason.
 
 
-7 # JackB 2012-12-04 18:44
I suggest you revisit the definition of treason.

He gave away state secrets & he wasn't authorized to do so. What he did is no different from what the traitors who are in jail for selling state secrets did.
 
 
+3 # engelbach 2012-12-05 07:07
The definition of treason is to deliberately aid a specific enemy.

Manning didn't release the documents to an enemy, but to a friendly source that screened them before publicizing them.

He also did not do it for personal gain, but to expose U.S. government wrongdoing.
 
 
-5 # JackB 2012-12-05 19:39
The sick thing is you are probably serious.

He didn't release secrets to a specific enemy? No, he didn't. He released them to the whole damn world.

To a "friendly" source that screened them??? Who exactly is Assange "friendly" to? Did he have America's best interests at heart? If it wasn't America's best interest that concerned him then what did? Giving the hypocrites on this board a reason to play at being righteous?

In addition to giving away the country's secrets he provided an opportunity for the "Look at me, I'm so righteous" folks to trash this country. For some reason they rarely seem to get around to trashing the behavior of massacres of innocents & other despicable acts done by other countries.
 
 
+2 # dickbd 2012-12-05 21:18
The people that really care about this country want to end the secrecy. That's true patriotism. We can love the country and hate the villainy that is done in the name of patriotism. Most people don't know of all the misdeeds because everything is classified secret.

I'm sure Assuange is human and has bad points, but if you listen to him, he comes off pretty well compared to most of our government officials.

We can love the country and disapprove of government actions. We are the most powerful country ever known. So we should provide a good example and show some restraint--espe cially when it comes to military action. Manning helped shine the light on some bad things, and so has WikiLeaks. Did you like the video of an American helicopter gunning down civilians, including children? Good citizens want to stop that kind of thing.
 
 
+2 # engelbach 2012-12-05 22:00
I define America as its people, not as the ruling class's National Security apparatus. The release of the documents exposed some of the lies the National Security State has been telling America; i.e., you and me.

WikiLeaks is an antidote to the crimes of governments against their own peoples. I don't choose to remain in the dark about those crimes, or to protect those who have committed them. Manning and Assange have done America and the world a huge service.

Countries don't commit "despicable acts," governments and specific groups of people do, and I see no shortage of reporting about them and condemning of them by the same people who hold the U.S. government to account.

Politicians who exploit their own people for power and profit and then cover up their misdeeds are the real traitors, not the whistleblowers who expose them. But that is still not the definition of "treason."
 
 
+16 # in deo veritas 2012-12-02 19:46
THewn you are just a willing accomoplice like what we had in Germany bfeore and during WWII>
 
 
+19 # in deo veritas 2012-12-02 19:49
Has anything been done by the present administration to make it any different thanm when the Bush & Cheney gang was in office? The lesser of two evils philosophy doen't hold water (or blood). The outing of Plame was treason but nothing done about it. Don't hold your breath waiting for anything to change. EWe will be lucky if the country is still around by 2016 at the rate things are disinegrating.
 
 
+104 # DaveM 2012-12-02 12:21
As Commander In Chief of the Armed Forces, it is within President Obama's power to intervene in Bradley Manning's case. I believe he has a duty to do so. Bradley Manning did nothing but report unlawful conduct perpetrated by his superiors, which is the duty of every member of the armed services.

To allow him to be singled out for punishment for doing the right thing is to genuinely threaten the security of every American. Not only in the military, but in every home occupied by people who believe in the rule of law.
 
 
-66 # Rain17 2012-12-02 14:23
If he felt there was an issue Manning should have reported it to his supervisors and the IG within the proper agencies. He didn't.
 
 
+37 # in deo veritas 2012-12-02 19:54
You have obviously never served in the armed forces or you would not make such an asenine statement. The military is a good ol boys club just like any other workplace. Everybody is concerned with their position rather than what is right or wrong. Even when reported nothing is changed. We learned that during The Nam-the hard way.
 
 
+10 # tbcrawford 2012-12-03 08:46
You are SOOOOO Naive!
 
 
+15 # Rascalndear 2012-12-03 09:26
very very naive... if your superiors are messing up, they're not the people to go to... they've already proved their unworthiness and criminality!
 
 
-81 # Rain17 2012-12-02 12:23
I'm sorry, but I'm really sick of the glorification of Bradley Manning. I could understand the position, though I will still disagree with it, if he had just released the info related that one incident, but he seems to have released large amounts of classified information. That is a crime and he is paying the consequences.

Anyone who works in the defense/homelan d security/intell igence community signs agreements not to disclose classified information to parties without the need to know. If Manning truly felt concerned by what he had seen he could have contacted the IG in the appropriate agencies to launch an investigation before releasing all those documents to Wikileaks. There were internal procedures that he could have followed but didn't.

Manning is no hero. I wasn't in favor of the Iraq war either, but I can't defend Manning. What he did was a crime. And the blunt reality is that many of you just don't want to accept or understand. I understand that you may be in strong disagreement with US foreign policy or the use of military force, but that doesn't give Manning the right to release classified information to parties without the need to know.

Lastly, how is this any different than what happened to Valerie Plame? The sources she worked with almost certainly met a tragic and gruesome end. And almost certainly the same probably happened those mentioned in Wikileaks.
 
 
+49 # Phlippinout 2012-12-02 14:50
You are entitled to your opinion, Hes my HERO! I am glad to have opened my eyes. I will not be a good little Nazi and keep my mouth shut. Perhaps the real punishment of war is not being able to win a battle after billions of wasted dollars and the worlds most aggressive weapons. Cant bully your way forever.
 
 
+38 # mdhome 2012-12-02 15:09
DID Dick Cheny get to spend anytime in a military prison under the same conditions as Manning?? Sorry I was not in favor of what he did, but since the treatment he has been given, I have swung 180 degrees to be in his side.
 
 
+49 # engelbach 2012-12-02 16:26
Your trust in the National Security State is wrongheaded.

What you refuse to believe or just don't understand is that "classified information" is more often than not what the government doesn't want you and me to know.

Obama promised transparency. Manning delivered it.
 
 
+21 # in deo veritas 2012-12-02 19:57
Hell yes! They are still holding WWII information as classified for no logical reason unless to cover up rotten things done back then.
 
 
+12 # in deo veritas 2012-12-02 19:58
A regime that lives in darkness cannot ever be transparent. Except in the eyes of God. No secrets there.
 
 
+39 # Dr. Amy L. Beam 2012-12-02 17:12
Your ignorance is showing. Start reading. Manning did report the abuse.
 
 
+12 # Sacrebleu! 2012-12-02 21:47
Although I disagree with you, what do you think, then, of Assange?

HE didn't sign any of these agreements, to the contrary.

I believe at least in his case he clearly works for transparency in governmentS ('S' purposeful, don't feel paranoid) and for the advancement of Democracy, which, as we know since the founding fathers, relies on a well-informed citizenry.

I am not sure about Manning's intentions but I am sure about the result, and I am sure that the beacon of light, the city on the hill, has been doing to Manning what it had been doing in Abu Ghraib.

Don't get me wrong, I love the US. For there you can still find people as human (not perfect) as a PFC Manning.
 
 
+8 # oakes721 2012-12-03 08:05
"The Need to Know" belongs to the American People and to the world our policies so heavily influence. Asking (IG) accomplices to incriminate themselves brings up the 5th amendment and simply continues the criminal actions in a politically correct stalemate ~ allowing the continuation of crimes buried in effortless investigations of themselves.
Rather than to deny employing illegal torture, the U.S. government publicly illustrated the brazen behavior revealed in the leaked documents.
 
 
+6 # Rascalndear 2012-12-03 09:31
You are the one who's not listening to anyone. Most commentators are not questioning that Manning may have done something illegal under certain regulations, even if he was justified (those in power always try to defend themselves against indefensible actions), but they ARE questioning (1) the difference in treatment of this yound soldier and Dick Cheney, (2) the need for due process and not undue treatment PRIOR to the conclusion of a trial, and (3) the potential risk that flaunting rule of law ON THE PART of the legal system presents for ALL citizens.
 
 
+59 # mjc 2012-12-02 12:27
The United States is no better than any Soviet style prison and the treatment he has been given reaches into the terror and inhumanity of the totalitarian regimes of the Germans or the Japanese during WWII, Our government does not like to be embarrassed nor have its more rotten policies revealed. America's political soul is rotting from inside.
 
 
-70 # Rain17 2012-12-02 12:32
The other thing is that Manning seems to be a person with mental health issues put in a position where he clearly was a security risk. The Army should have noticed his erratic behavior and gotten him mental health. I also think his motivations were not for the noble reasons that many here believe.
 
 
+42 # engelbach 2012-12-02 16:27
It doesn't matter what you think about his motive.

The result was to expose government misdeeds and lies that we have a right to know about. That's more than enough for me to defend him.
 
 
+29 # Dr. Amy L. Beam 2012-12-02 17:29
Ah, Rain17, is that as in "RAIN on my parade?" Who's paying you to spam, RAIN? I had a peek at your spamming history and it does not add up to being an RSN reader. Don't you have something like GOPUSA to read? What you are doing to this thread of comments is quite obviouse. You are trying to derail the discussion. It is transparent.
 
 
+12 # Sacrebleu! 2012-12-02 21:52
If you check out the timeline you will see that the mental health issues happened after the incarceration in the conditions we have all heard about.
 
 
+5 # Rascalndear 2012-12-03 09:33
Wow, the mental health card. You must be reading a lot of literature on how the soviet union handled dissent... as must be our government. "Psycghiatric treatment" was their favorite punishment for political dissidents!
 
 
+52 # dickbd 2012-12-02 13:04
The Bradley Manning and Julian Assuange situations are terrifying and demonstrative of freedom going down the drain. It was always my impression that Erin Burnett was an intelligent beautiful reporter. But she is either naive about world affairs or has been corrupted by the corporate media. Sad

I'm impressed with RSN's attention to these two cases. They are important. Perhaps we should work toward having a completely transparent government, as all administrations have abused the power of classifying documents and information.

They have even found ways to avoid the power of the Freedom of Information Act. Sad.
 
 
-47 # Rain17 2012-12-02 14:17
Freedom isn't "going down the drain". As part of his duties as an intelligence analyst Manning received access to classified information. As part of that access Manning almost certainly had to sign multiple nondisclosure statements agreeing that he would not improperly disclose the information to unauthorized parties without the need to know. When he signed those statements, Manning knew what the legal consequences would be for unauthorized disclosures to parties without the need to know. I could at least sympathize with Manning if he pursued remedies through his command chain and the IG, but he didn't. It's also clear that Manning indiscriminatel y released information. It's clear to me that he is neither a hero nor a whistle-blower. The bottom line is that you don't have the "freedom" to release classified information to parties without the need to know.
 
 
+32 # dickbd 2012-12-02 16:04
There shouldn't be so many rules or so much secrecy. A democracy relies on informed citizens. We can't be that with a secret government. Without WikiLeaks we wouldn't get a view into how our troops gunned down civilians and children from a helicopter. Anyone that can watch that with equanimity has something wrong with them.

We aren't at war. We're at occupation. The War on Terrorism makes as much sense as the War on Drugs or a War on Jaywalkers, for that matter.

We're the greatest military power ever, and a truly great country would use such power with a little restraint. But we are well on the road to becoming an evil empire ourselves if we stay this course. We citizens should provide opposition to all of this.
 
 
+10 # unitedwestand 2012-12-02 23:46
Yes, the ignorance should stop with "we citizens" but it hasn't because many think that not knowing what our government is doing, no matter what, is patriotism. The concept of Democracy has been erased.
 
 
+32 # engelbach 2012-12-02 16:29
If you think our freedoms are secure you haven't read the Patriot Act or NDAA, or understand that presidential power to assassinate anyone in the world just on his say so and detain anyone indefinitely without charge or trial are unconstitutiona l.
 
 
+39 # Dr. Amy L. Beam 2012-12-02 17:33
When his chain of command told him to be quiet, he released the documents showing war crimes by the US and by Iraq to the PUBLIC. And yes, I DO HAVE THE NEED TO KNOW. Too bad you prefer to wear blinders.
 
 
+14 # Sacrebleu! 2012-12-02 21:54
As Nuremberg taught us all (well, maybe not you) war crimes cannot be exonerated on the basis of orders, even less on signed legal papers.
Come on, get a grip.
 
 
+1 # Anarchist 23 2012-12-05 22:46
So we should all be 'good Germans' and believe the propaganda? Yes, we are the freest nation in the world-a shining beacon to the other peoples. And I am Queen of England!
 
 
+29 # Gnome de Pluehm 2012-12-02 13:08
@df312:

Yes, he's a whistle-blower. Vandalism at worst, and no treason involved. You sound like Cheney, who said, "Principles are ok, as far as they go." Such notions reduce principles to tactics. His notion was apparently that honesty is the best policy but there is always another one available if it doesn't get you what you want.
 
 
+57 # Dotty 2012-12-02 13:15
I almost didn't vote for Obama because of Manning, don't like the way he was treated at all. Too bad Obama didn't try Bush & Co. for all their lie about the Iraq war, no they got a pass. Obama didn't want to "LOOK BACK" as he said. Manning deserves the peace prize, not Obama.
 
 
+65 # aljoschu 2012-12-02 13:20
The shameful treatment of Mr. Bradley Manning that borders on torture, and his preemptive condemnation without proper accusation and trial is a disgrace for any western civilization. In fact, this is the kind of treatment which expels any nation from the community of liberal democratic nations.
The so-called commander in chief, this double-faced, split-tongue holder of the nobel peace prize, Mr Barack Obama is in charge and responsible and he should be sued in international courts - since the American jurisdiction is incapable of doing the job.
All the strident hysterical hatred which has been vomited over this young soldier by leading political representatives reminds me of proceeding in my own country Germany during the Nazi-era. Dear Americans, your jurisdiction is gradually sinking to a level of the former 3rd Reich "Volksgerichtsh of" under its president Roland Freisler - the special court established to sue and condemn so-called traitors against the Nazi regime - our true martyrs and heroes of that terribly misguided and desastrous time.
Where is America, the former land of the brave? Where are the braves who stand up to call out this perversion of justice?
 
 
+30 # Dr. Amy L. Beam 2012-12-02 16:57
minor correction: treatment of Manning doesn't "border" on torture; it IS torture.
 
 
+12 # in deo veritas 2012-12-02 20:30
Well said! This country has begun to embrace every form of despicable and criminal behavior that it sacrificed so many lives to eliminate. Too many people desert justice and honesty for the sake of wealth. There will be an unavoidable price to pay for this consummate folly.
 
 
+1 # Anarchist 23 2012-12-05 22:48
Thank you aljoschu for legitimizing my reference to 'good Germans' I hope other readers pay great attention to what you wrote!
 
 
+70 # Dr. Amy L. Beam 2012-12-02 13:38
Bradley Manning’s Quantico Cell 2x the Size of Parrot Cage

Bradley Manning’s cage-like cell at Quantico was 6’ by 8’, twice the size of the minimum cage size requirement of 3’ x 4’ for a large macaw parrot.

Based on observing the cell dimensions presented by David Coombs in court, the bed was 2.5’ x 6’. There was a toilet on the end wall and sink on the wall opposite the bed. This left a floor space for walking of 3’ by 6’. Manning testified that exercising in his cell was forbidden but dancing was not. So he danced to keep his sanity, since he was not permitted to lie down or sit and lean against the wall during the day. I measured off a 3’ x 6’ area to see how many paces I could take to cross the length of the space: exactly three. One-two-three-p ivot. One-two-three-p ivot. Left-right-left -pivot. Left-right-left -pivot. To call this pacing is an exaggeration. That is how I understood what I, myself, would do if caged up like Manning had been. I would pivot and turn, just like when I salsa dance. I am certain that this would be torture if confined for nine days let alone 9 months in a cage this size.
 
 
+1 # Dr. Amy L. Beam 2012-12-09 11:20
If you are just tuning in, my blog site at open.salon has been "disappeared" since I posted the story "Bradley Manning's Quantico Cell 2X Size of Parrot Cage". This is the 3rd time in one year it has been attacked to suppress support of Manning, Assange, and Wikileaks. Websites of both attorney's for Manning (David E. Coombs) and Assange (MichaelRatner. com) have also been attacked. It's serious folks. The battle to suppress the truth is serious.
 
 
+15 # AshamedAmerican 2012-12-02 13:51
Obama helps al-Qaida in Syria as it did in Libya. And he's done much worse. When is Obama's trial set to begin?
 
 
+28 # mdhome 2012-12-02 15:30
Right after the trial for Bush/Cheny!
 
 
+14 # AshamedAmerican 2012-12-02 19:25
Exactly- never. They all get away with any amount of war for profit etc. as long as they don't oppose the ruling class agenda- give or take a little embarrassment over their sex lives.
 
 
+7 # in deo veritas 2012-12-02 20:33
Unfortunately the trial was on election day and he walked. Typical of so-called American justice. It will not be this easy before the ultimate judge of us all.
 
 
+30 # cafetomo 2012-12-02 13:51
American media contorts itself fantastically, attempting to focus on anything but what has been laid bare in truth. The indoctrinated mindless oblige them, regurgitating sound bytes and party lines, rolling about on the treatment of another human being as a dog would a dead animal.

Who has the evil empire now?
 
 
+56 # seeuingoa 2012-12-02 13:54
Shame on Obama for letting the treatment
of Manning happen on his watch.
 
 
+29 # Helen Marshall 2012-12-02 15:22
Quoting seeuingoa:
Shame on Obama for letting the treatment
of Manning happen on his watch.


He did not "let" it happen...He announced that Manning was guilty, and effectively gave the green light to it. The military command and the Pentagon report to him. He could stop this in a second. He does not; perhaps because he ordered it.
 
 
+22 # Nel 2012-12-02 13:57
MSM's guidelines:
1-Persecute discenting information
2-Omit discenting information.
3-Stick to Goebbels' jurnalistc priciples.
 
 
-24 # madmainer 2012-12-02 14:02
Manning's alleged violation of the UCMJ and his alleged maltreatment as a prisoner are two separate issues, and should be adjudicated as such. You cannot have a military, or a government, where every "employee" can decide for themselves what should and should not be treated as classified material. I agree with df312 on Manning's act, if proven, but am horrified by the treatment he may have received as a prisoner.
 
 
+13 # engelbach 2012-12-02 16:32
But every employee doesn't decide for him- or herself on what should be treated as classified. Projecting Manning's act onto everyone is absurd.

Not that we wouldn't be better off if more government workers exposed the lies they come across in their work.
 
 
+34 # Dr. Amy L. Beam 2012-12-02 17:00
Boy, you really have it backwards. You should be HORRIFIED at the crimes Manning revealed. Manning was brave enough to risk life in prison for his principals, which, by the way are called The Nuremburg Principals. Look them up.
 
 
+11 # Sacrebleu! 2012-12-02 21:57
That, to some extent I can agree with, although I still believe that Manning did great good for the sake of keeping the public informed.

Otherwise we are treated as mushrooms: kept in the dark and fed BS.
 
 
+28 # Dr. Amy L. Beam 2012-12-02 14:16
Bradley Manning’s cage-like cell at Quantico Marine Brig in 2010-2011 was 6’ by 8’, twice the size of the minimum cage size requirement of 3’ x 4’ for a large macaw parrot.

Based on observing the cell dimensions presented by David Coombs in court, the bed was 2.5’ x 6’. There was a toilet on the end wall and sink on the wall opposite the bed. This left a floor space for walking of 3’ by 6’. Manning testified that exercising in his cell was forbidden but dancing was not. So he danced to keep his sanity, since he was not permitted to lie down or sit and lean against the wall during the day.

I measured off a 3’ x 6’ area to see how many paces I could take to cross the length of the space: exactly three. One-two-three-p ivot. One-two-three-p ivot. Left-right-left -pivot. Left-right-left -pivot. To call this pacing is an exaggeration. That is how I understood what I, myself, would do if caged up like Manning had been. I would pivot and turn, just like when I salsa dance. I am certain that this would be torture if confined for nine days, let alone nine months in a cage this size. All charges should be dropped and Manning should be released. His trial is the trial of the United States shaming itself to the world
 
 
+42 # JJMUELLER@aol.com 2012-12-02 14:21
Exposing war crimes is not a crime.

Bless your uneasiness as a sign that there is still life in you.
Dag Hammarskoid
 
 
+30 # Antemedius 2012-12-02 16:08
It is a crime to NOT expose war crimes.
 
 
+23 # medusa 2012-12-02 14:46
What Manning released made the State Department look pretty good, and pointed out problems with having the Army deployed for no clear purpose. The kind of punishment talked about won't do anyone any good. How about using some mercy--time served, for instance-- to show that we're still civilized?
 
 
+7 # in deo veritas 2012-12-02 20:38
No person who has never served in the armed forces has ever deserved the title of "commander in chief". It has been used too frequently to place them above both domestic and international law.
 
 
+12 # in deo veritas 2012-12-02 20:40
Who is still stupid enough to believe that we are civilized? Just those afraid to look in the mirror for fear the inner darkness will show through.
 
 
-19 # genierae 2012-12-02 14:53
Bradley Manning may or may not be a hero, but those who do act for the good of the country, breaking established law, must accept their punishment with equanimity. I am not excusing Manning's treatment, that was brutal and wrong, but he did break military law and he must endure the consequences. Gandhi went to jail many times. He willingly broke the law, and he cheerfully accepted his punishment. That's how you create change. "Be the change you wish to see in the world."
 
 
+18 # Antemedius 2012-12-02 16:07
http://www.armystudyguide.com/content/powerpoint/Military_Justice_Presentations/law-of-war-2.shtml



HUMINT Collectors MUST:

Report Suspected War Crimes Encountered during the Course of Their Duties
 
 
+21 # engelbach 2012-12-02 16:34
Don't be absurd. neither Gandhi nor Martin Luther King accepted punishment "cheerfully."

You are speaking in favor of punishment, which puts you on the wrong side.
 
 
-2 # genierae 2012-12-03 10:29
You are the absurd one, engelbach. I am NOT speaking in favor of punishment, I am speaking about bucking the system while all the time knowing that you are going to face some consequences. I firmly believe that breaking bad laws is a GOOD thing to do, but we live in a world that does not reward rebellion, and punishment is unavoidable. I have done a lot of reading about the life of Gandhi and YES HE DID accept his confinement "cheerfully". He was a stoic and he knew that the only honest place for a good man to be in evil times is jail. Breaking the law was a deliberate act, but a peaceful one and he submitted to his imprisonment without rancor.
 
 
+2 # engelbach 2012-12-05 07:45
I disagree. Punishment is avoidable -- or at least the attempt to avoid punishment. Accepting punishment "cheerfully" condones the law one supposedly opposes.

Manning may have chosen to accept a plea to avoid more serious charges, but he also could have chosen to mount a Nuremburg defense. Win or lose, it would have been fighting punishment, not accepting it.

I'm not criticizing him for plea bargaining. But I doubt that he is accepting his punishment "cheerfully."
 
 
+1 # Anarchist 23 2012-12-05 22:54
This wasn't imprisonment-th is was torture. BTW check out the conditions of our hugely imprisoned population-the conditions there are quite bad enough to qualify as 'torture' in more civilized countries. For that matter, look at the living conditions of our increasingly large population of unemployed and under employed. And remember, if you are like most of us, you too are only one paycheck away from homelessness-a thrown away person in a throw away society. Welcommin to the Geheim Staats of Amerikkka!
 
 
+35 # cafetomo 2012-12-02 16:46
Punishment before trial? How lovely. Prolonged imprisonment on presumption of guilt? by all means. Any who would justify mistreatment on the presumption of guilt would watch someone kicked to death for being probably illegal, raped because she was probably asking for it, all uncritically accepted on the weight of authority.

How can it be made clear that Manning, Assange, innumerable unnameable others silenced and/or murdered are neither abstraction nor anomaly any more than this has become a nation for or by the people?

Democracy does not thrive on secrecy. Fascism does. have a care, or you may become one of those asked to choose between enjoying or administering the current analog to Zyklon B.
 
 
+37 # Dr. Amy L. Beam 2012-12-02 17:06
Sorry, he did not break military law or international law. The law DEMANDS that every service man is responsible to report crimes perpetrated by the military. Read Nuremberg Principal 4. And from the military code book for Iraq: (2)(U)reporting detainee abuse is a service members responsibility
 
 
+28 # Antemedius 2012-12-02 16:04
U.S. Code: CHAPTER 113C--TORTURE
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_113C.html

§ 2340. Definitions
§ 2340A. Torture
§ 2340B. Exclusive remedies

Summary of International and U.S. Law Prohibiting Torture
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05/24/usint8614.htm

International and U.S. law prohibits torture and other ill-treatment of ANY person in custody in ALL circumstances.. ..It is irrelevant whether the detainee is determined to be a... so-called "security detainee" or "unlawful combatant." And the prohibition is in effect within the territory of the United States or any place anywhere U.S. authorities have control over a person.... the prohibition against torture and ill-treatment is absolute.
...
Torture is defined as an "act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control." A person found guilty under the act can be incarcerated for up to 20 years or receive the death penalty if the torture results in the victim's death.

I expect Obama, a Constitutional Lawyer, will surrender himself any day now.

He belongs in a caged prisoners dock in the Hague beside Bush, Cheney, RumsFeld and a few others... so we can listen to him whimper "but I was just following orders!" before he's sentenced to life.
 
 
+34 # DIAMONDMARGE 2012-12-02 16:05
"Equal under the law"?? I want to join the group commenting above: Bradley Manning is a HERO. In trying to expose the shameful hypocrisy evident in documents he saw, he has brought all the wrath of those in the military and civil governments who wish to cover up crimes. I want to see Cheney & Bush subjected to such torture as this honorable young man has been subjected. OBAMA, do the right thing: admit you were mistaken in your comments before and issue a Presidential order giving Manning an honorable discharge from the military with monetary amounts commensurate with the nearly THREE YEARS OF PRE-TRIAL TORTURE.
 
 
+8 # in deo veritas 2012-12-02 20:45
If a person does not act like a Christian he is probably not one. What Obama has done in regard to Manning does not show one iota of behavior that any self-respecting follower of Christ would exhibit. Lesser of two evils nonsense does not apply in this instance.
 
 
+4 # tbcrawford 2012-12-03 08:55
[quote name="in deo veritas"]If a person does not act like a Christian he is probably not one.

"Christianity" may be the problem here! Wars, crusades, the Inquisition, witch hunts...and more...This is not the message that Jesus preached! Reread your bible, please.
 
 
+25 # GerryBD 2012-12-02 16:25
".... not improperly disclose the information to unauthorized parties without the need to know." Rain17, your condition "without the need to know" undoes your argument completely. Part of living in a democracy is that the general public do have the right, and therefore do need to know, when elected and military officials are blatantly mistreating fellow citizens on the planet. If citizens in a democracy don't know, about such mistreatment, then it is impossible for them to vote intelligently. Bradley Manning was fulfilling the need of democratic citizens to know that their elected officials and military brass, and especially their security forces were systematically acting in inhumane and illegal ways. Even you Rain 17 needed to know this, unless you don't live in a democracy, or at least wish not to.
 
 
+9 # in deo veritas 2012-12-02 20:47
Don't waste your time on "rain". He or she is paying no attention-just immersed in ideology.
 
 
+20 # Dr. Amy L. Beam 2012-12-02 16:55
military code: (2)(U)reporting detainee abuse is a service members responsibility

it goes on to clarify that this includes reporting abuse by Iraqi police or military forces upon Iraqi prisoners turned over to them by the US military....uh, was it 1000 or 10,000 Frago reports of abuse? Any wonder why Manning dumped the 250,000 pages? I think the Army should figure out how to avoid a full trial and let Manning go, because the exposure of the level of torture will be huge.
 
 
+10 # in deo veritas 2012-12-02 20:50
And if the exposure of this is what is deserved, then Manning will have fulfilled his mission. If not then it will be clear that indeed we are now under a dictatorship by the corpoprate media and their puppets in the White House and Congress. Public outrage is deserved but will likely not happen. We are too far gone.
 
 
+5 # rradiof 2012-12-02 16:55
Joy-Ann Reid is another subhuman like Susan Rice. The history of chattel slavery is founded on Africans selling other Africans to first, the Portuguese, next, the Dutch, and the finally, to the Brits. Viva Sally Hemmings who brought home from France with her owner T-Jeff: macaroni and cheese. Where are you Cynthia McKinney when we need you.
 
 
+4 # in deo veritas 2012-12-02 20:52
Referring to someone as a subhuman sounds very like what the Nazis said about all non-Arytans? Just what is your point?
 
 
+22 # zgpinc 2012-12-02 17:17
Who would have guessed that "truth" would be the murdered with the Obama administration, promising "hope" and "change."
It hurts to realize that we are subject to false-speak that rivals "Bush-Cheney." Here was someone who saw the abuses and refused to remain silent. Much like Tom Drake, who called out the waste and malfeasance at NSA. And while Obama just signed a whistleblower act, we continue to prosecute whistleblowers.

And where is the press to protest? Great article Glenn and thanks to RSN.
 
 
+19 # jstick 2012-12-02 18:08
Nominate Bradley Manning for the Nobel Peace Prize!
 
 
+8 # independentmind 2012-12-02 18:25
What happened to the sunshine? The government was just embarrassed by some of their communications. Maybe our Diplomats should think before they e-mail. If you don't say stupid stuff leaks don't hurt.
 
 
-27 # RightForAReason 2012-12-02 19:16
He had numerous legal alternatives to releasing information that could get people killed. He is darn lucky they only want life in prison. His actions were treasonous. His actions deserve the death penalty.
 
 
+1 # engelbach 2012-12-05 07:47
People all over this thread are inventing their own definition of "treason."

I suggest you all get together in a study group and look up the proper definition, and stop loading your rancorous posts with indefensible hyperbole.
 
 
+11 # hammermann 2012-12-02 19:47
Bradley Manning may have mental problems (certainly after his torture), he undoubtedly broke the law, but torture is an international crime... period. The fact that const. prof BO has endorsed and ratified it as a legitimate option, and failed to prosecute Bush + thug vermin who promoted it (e.g. the Dick, Cheney) is his greatest shame. He has gone after all whistle-blowers worse than anyone since Wilson.

I don't doubt this Wiki-release could have caused some deaths of our assets, but PROVE IT. Mostly though, just embarrassment of some State Dept officials + foreign leaders. And some revelatory video of our bloodthirsty armchair op-center warriors' helicopter butchering a van of civilians, inc. journalists. In a volunteer army some join for the thrill of the kill.
 
 
+14 # Michael_K 2012-12-02 20:28
All of you who have stood up for the admi.istration' s right to seek revenge against anyone revealing their crimes.. Just think, if you were in the dock at Nuremberg, your arguments would have you swinging at the end of a role, and rightly so.
 
 
+16 # Shipton 2012-12-02 21:18
The U.S. Army is currently and since his incarceration, violating Sec. 813. ART. 13
of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)
"PUNISHMENT PROHIBITED BEFORE TRIAL

No person, while being held for trial, may be subjected to punishment or penalty other than arrest or confinement upon the charges pending against him, nor shall the arrest or confinement imposed upon him be any more rigorous than the circumstances required to insure his presence, but he may be subjected to minor punishment during that period for infractions of discipline."
 
 
+10 # MainStreetMentor 2012-12-02 21:43
I can’t find the principles within this article regarding my country – the principled country I learned about in grade and high school … the principled country our fathers fought and died for in World War II. I’m having more and more difficulty recognizing this country as the one I grew up in. Truth lies buried under falsehoods, miscreant deeds, fabrications, cover-ups, “white-washes” and legal mumbo-jumbo. We’ve allowed clandestine webs of misdirection and veils of pseudo-secrecy to trump plain and simple truth, not only at the government level, but within personal actions and deeds as well. It’s still a country – but it’s not the country I could recognize as "my America".
 
 
+2 # acomfort 2012-12-02 22:44
II think
Bradley Manning did the wrong thing but he had to because of a bad system.
The secrecy system in the US government is a self imposed conflict of interest.
Maybe a way to correct the classification system is to require the approval of a non-interested person/group. Or maybe there should be strict guidelines on what can and cannot be classified and penalties for improper classifying outside of these guidelines.
OR
No promotions for anyone classifying anything that just protects the military/govern ment from illegal activities or embarrassment.

Just some thoughts . . . a correction to the classification system will never even be discussed by the MSM.
 
 
+8 # hoodwinkednomore 2012-12-03 05:18
Rain and rightforreason, Moles that you are, perhaps you might be incarcerated for a time--enough to read up on the facts, etc.

Glenn Greenwald made several indisputable, important points regarding the unlawful imprisonment of Bradley Manning. He also pointed out the fact that mainstream media failed in their supposed commitment to do their job to the best of their abilities and to report the news--for whatever reasons.
 
 
+6 # jerryball 2012-12-03 12:57
Because Hillary might feel embarrassment over a freudian slip up in an email, Bradley Manning is accused of "aiding the enemy" which carries a death sentence? Welcome to AMERIKA.
 
 
+8 # fredboy 2012-12-03 17:36
Rain 17, a nondisclosure statement cannot displace a caring soul. Only those who simply comply and obey could overlook evil and never report it. Whores have more dignity.
 
 
+1 # RobertMStahl 2012-12-04 05:15
By NOT reporting murder, does it make you an accessory? Ignorance is no excuse for the law, but the syndicate gets away with ignorance on top of ignorance. No one is wiser for what the law is, or was, since it may be too late to prioritize, to get the worst first. The operation was a success, the patient died. Did Manning 'successfully' report a murder? When one cannot follow something like the truth for these 'items' connected at the hip, there is just no hope. Maybe that is the point.
Without learning, or learning to learn as Gregory Bateson puts it, all is totalitarian. "In the beginning, all was mush and without form."
 
 
0 # RobertMStahl 2012-12-04 10:49
Also, I wonder about two things. First Amy Goodman and AIDS. Does she ignore real journalism, albeit true medical journalism, Deconstructing the Myth of AIDS by Gary Null, very old. Also, House of Numbers and all the 'sequels' is excellent. Then, there is the misuse of the origin of this high crime period beginning, evidently, at 9/11 when the term al Qaeda was a term for software used for laundering money, and now is a term for 'the enemy.' How perfect is all this? Too perfect is my guess. But, it follows a pattern of the war machine. Know Indira Singh. Know William Binney. Know Tommy Tamm of the FBI. Know that a smart second grade student could program the software used to follow the money around the planet, accomplished because we don't know parallel processing power (because of its simplicity). Then, there is BLP, Inc.'s invention, CIHT. The paradigm of old won't leave because the Old Guard has a stranglehold on learing.
 
 
0 # RobertMStahl 2012-12-04 13:37
Also, I wonder about two things. First Amy Goodman and AIDS. Does she ignore real journalism, albeit true medical journalism, Deconstructing the Myth of AIDS by Gary Null, very old. Also, House of Numbers and all the 'sequels' is excellent. Then, there is the misuse of the origin of this high crime period beginning, evidently, at 9/11 when the term al Qaeda was a term for software used for laundering money, and now is a term for 'the enemy.' How perfect is all this? Too perfect is my guess. But, it follows a pattern of the war machine. Know Indira Singh. Know William Binney. Know Tommy Tamm of the FBI. Know that a smart second grade student could program the software used to follow the money around the planet, accomplished because we don't know parallel processing power (because of its simplicity). Then, there is BLP, Inc.'s invention, CIHT. The paradigm of old won't leave because the Old Guard (totalitarianis m) has a stranglehold on learning.
 
 
+4 # Artemis 2012-12-05 01:37
In every country I go to I hear government policies cloaked as journalism on the daily news programs. They are not only alarming, but extremely superficial, deceitful and frustrating. I basically only watch democracynow.or g or pick my way through various online papers and sites like RSN.
 
 
0 # Antemedius 2013-02-28 14:31
Since Obama was murdering innocent kids around the world during his first term, the only reasonable assumptions that can be made after the fact are that not only is Obama a terrorist by all definitions of the word, and this was no secret at the time of the election, Barack Obama is a terrorist who deserves to be in prison enjoying fairer and more humane treatment than he doles out to his overseas victims with Hellfire missiles and to his American torture victims like Bradley Manning.

The man belongs in a cell, with Bush and Cheney. He is their getaway driver.

Anyone who voted for Barack Obama in 2012 and is now supporting him is either consciously and intentionally a terrorist sympathizer and supporter, or is just plain stupid.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN