Long report on Manning’s mental and physical state that included this nugget:
Manning had seen Harold Ford’s appearance on Meet the Press and thought that his observations were compelling.
Can we all at least agree that forcing Manning to watch Meet the Press with Harold Ford constitutes a form of torture?
me
Or maybe the fact that he thought Ford was compelling shows his fragile mental state?
cathyx
He’s obviously delusional if he found Ford compelling.
stuckinred
A federal judge in Florida has struck down as unconstitutional key parts of the sweeping health care reform bill.
jeffreyw
Thread needs chicken.
mikefromArlington
If this guy finds Ford compelling it can only mean one thing…
They’ve finally broken him.
Stillwater
@stuckinred: Linky?
stuckinred
@Stillwater: Struck Down
Stillwater
@stuckinred: Mandate unconstitutional, not severable. Well that sucks.
Tsulagi
@stuckinred: That’s gonna trigger a lot premature starbursts.
eemom
it doesn’t matter what this pissant Florida judge thinks. This is not going to be decided at the district court level.
It’s just gonna make more noise.
Fuck him anyway, and whichever dicks he sucked to get appointed.
cat48
Weigel says the entire bill was struck down, yet Pete Wilson, NBC Court Reporter, says just the Mandate; but the rest of the bill survives.
lol
So how long before we find out the conflict of interest *this* judge has?
geg6
OT, but it seems to fit under the title of the thread…
At least one of them will do anything:
http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=rl8qb9dab&v=001bHw_LhcjpQr7MIMSrqlMvAkwM750eYYqj6oCnjHRE3JgyMr7qNITQwDXvnQ2SFN06AThMADNKwRwfPSyFI1eQynGNN8vDy5H8HOvtCxc4so%3D
Good lord.
geg6
@eemom:
That would Ronaldus Magnus’ dick.
dmsilev
@geg6:
I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that ‘beauty and makeup’ were not the major challenges that Sharon Angle faced during the campaign. Being batshit insane would have to rate just a tad higher.
dms
cat48
Reagan appointee, figures he would destroy the Kenyan’s hcr.
@johncole I think Harold Ford sounds very sincere and earnest, usually, but I don’t agree with him 80% of the time. I personally consider having him identified as “a Democrat” “torture”.
R-Jud
@geg6:
You have ruined my dessert.
Allan
That was a nice article. I see Jane’s still beating the unprecedented, no one’s ever been treated this horribly ever drum, and trying to keep the Manning story alive in spite of actual breaking international news by linking him with Egypt, however tenuously.
I can’t wait for her post letting us know Bradley’s pick for the Super Bowl.
joe from Lowell
I could have sworn I read that Manning wasn’t allowed to watch the news.
Bloix
#19- if you’d sworn, you’d have been wrong.
“He is allowed to watch television [apparently in his cell] during the day… His access to the television ranges from 1 to 3 hours on weekdays to 3 to 6 hours on weekends.”
http://davidswanson.org/content/free-bradley-manning-monday
#18 – Really, what is it with people here? Do you want John Cole to give you a pat on the head? Okay, so you don’t like Jane Hamsher. That doesn’t mean that the Government has a right to try to coerce a false confession out of Manning.
eemom
I should say that as a general rule, I do believe that most — MOST — federal judges, regardless of who appointed them, do strive to fulfill their responsibilities honestly and with integrity and without regard to politics. A good example of that was in the Schiavo circus, in which every federal court involved did the right thing and threw out whatever that bullshit bill was that Bush flew back from Crawford to sign.
However, my understanding (not being an expert in this area of law) is that the arguments of the purported “unconstitutionality” of the ACA really are bullshit arguments. Many issues can be honestly debated in constitutional law; that doesn’t mean there are no arguments that are just plain bullshit which deserve to be treated as such. Therefore, IMO, a judge striking this law down is conclusively presumed to be either a tool of its opponents or a true believer in their lies.
joe from Lowell
@Bloix: Nope, I’m right, and you’re wrong. I did read it.
From Glenn Greenwald:
lol
@Bloix:
I think he’s making reference to his fact-challenged defenders here who usually maintain that he’s being held without charge as well.
lol
@joe from Lowell:
That’s technically true in that the during the one hour per day he’s not in his cell, he’s barred from accessing news programs. Glenn just forgot to mention his access to news during the other 23 hours.
And you’re a bad person if you think Glenn was trying to be misleading in doing so.
joe from Lowell
@Bloix: Let’s see if you can demonstrate more class when shown to be wrong than Greenwald. Here’s how he handles being proven wrong:
You?
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
Had he been forced, then, yeah yeah, sure sure.
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@joe from Lowell:
FIFG
Allan
@Bloix: You’re not from around here, are you? I can tell because a) you don’t appear to be familiar with the “reply” link most BJers use to respond to comments, and 2) Cole is not a Hamsher hater so I don’t expect any pats on the head for my comments.
Then there’s the very FDL-esque way you equate any criticism of Jane with personally torturing Manning with red-hot pokers forever.
You’d best return to your bubble of epistemic closure before you have what’s left of your head handed to you.
PS
@joe from Lowell: Ah, c’mon, let’s not play Gotcha, it’s dull. You made a sarcastic comment, Bloix took it seriously and presented the truth, with which you agree, and you jumped down his throat. Not funny, not useful.
Zifnab
The kid has clearly undergone serious and debilitating mental harm.
MikeJ
@Bloix:
Huh? How are they doing that? He already confessed to Lamo. I don’t see how they’re coercing him at all.
His lawyer asked for a psych eval, they put him on suicide watch. I would guess that’s pretty standard.
soonergrunt
@PS:
Err, what?
I’m fairly sure that Joe didn’t agree, and that’s why he “jumped down his throat.”
Stillwater
@eemom: Therefore, IMO, a judge striking this law down is conclusively presumed to be either a tool of its opponents or a true believer in their lies.
NAL, but I’m very curious to read his ruling on this given his huge burden in striking it down. I remember reading lots of discussion about the constitutionality of the mandate over at Balkinization, and those guys seemed to be very clear that the mandate was constitutional. Should be interesting.
soonergrunt
@MikeJ: Small clarification, Mike J–
We don’t know who asked for the RCM 706 board. We do know that the government denies asking for it (and if they were hoping to use Manning against Assange, it wouldn’t make any sense to contest Manning’s sanity) and we know that David Coombs (Manning’s lawyer for those who didn’t know) has never addressed the question of whether or not he requested the board.
lol
@PS:
You don’t find it funny that to rebut Joe, Bloix posted a link reporting that Manning was simultaneously able and unable to watch the news?
lol
@soonergrunt:
This is a Washington Times link unfortunately, but it quotes a Army spokesman straight up saying the defense requested the 706 board.
“What’s happening right now, they are convening a 706 board, which is a board to determine his mental fitness, which was requested by the defense,” Col. Manning said. “Because of the nature of the charges, that board is being screened. Once that board meets and determines Pfc. Manning‘s mental fitness, then they will continue to move forward with the Uniform Code of Military Justice process. That’s the first thing that needs to happen, this 706 board. … I don’t have a timeline on that.”
September
Meanwhile, Jane Hamsher’s incredible public breakdown over the issues continues to be hilarious.
soonergrunt
@lol: That’s a new one by me. Thanks.
Bloix
#23 – it’s fairly uncontroversial that he doesn’t have a tv in his cell, so he doesn’t have tv for 24 hours.
#25 – a little googling appears to show that he did not have access to news in December 2010 but did have access to news in January 2011. It wouldn’t be a big surprise to learn that the restrictions on his confinement change from time to time.
BTW, Greenwald is scrupulous about admitting error, even at his most adversarial.
#30 – it is forbidden to put an inmate on suicide watch without the recommendation of a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist at Quantico did not recommend it. The commander of the brig put him suicide watch without any medical reason to do so. The logical explanation is that he wanted to impose severe treatment but after Guantanamo and Abu Graib he had to have a cover story. Hence the phony suicide watch. So if you would guess that it’s pretty standard, you would be wrong.
#29 – did you bother to read what Ford said? He said that the Egyptian 20-somethings with twitter had a better handle on the events in Cairo than all the network pundits. For Manning, who is looking at life in prison, the idea that the leaked cables had something to do with the Tunisian and Egyptian uprisings, must be a life-line – something that gives his life meaning. Ford’s comment must have sounded to him like an affirmation for what he was trying to do. Not that Ford would have any sympathy for Manning – but that Ford understands how the new media have the power to change the world.
Oh, and #30 – Lamo says a lot of things that aren’t confirmed anywhere. The government wants to put Assange in a Supermax for life. But right now they’ve got nothing that wouldn’t also require them to put journalists at New York Times, the Guardian, and Der Spiegel away for life. So they deeply want a confession from Manning that he conspired with Assange. The message to Manning is pretty simple:
“We can make it so you never see the sun again, never run or jump again, never have a normal conversation with another human being, never read a book or sleep under a blanket or feel a breeze on your skin. We can keep you in a white-walled box until the day you die. Or, you can say what we want you to say. The choice is yours.”
That’s what’s going on, and the fact that you don’t like Glenn Greenwald or Jane Hamsher doesn’t make it any less true.
Phil Perspective
@joe from Lowell: Wasn’t Ford just on TV yesterday? It seems things have changed just a little bit since last week.
soonergrunt
@Bloix: Dude. They have medications for that level of paranoia.
Between the outright wrong statements like “he didn’t have news before december 2010” the irrelevencies like “he doesn’t have news 23 hours a day” the confusing of terms like suicide watch and Prevention of Injury Watch, and not noting that when he was last placed on ACTUAL suicide watch, it was reversed by Manning’s lawyer working with the Army Staff Judge Advocate’s office to get it reversed, and the outright off the deep end hamsher-like unfounded statements and speculation at the end of it, there’s really no engaging with you except to note that you are either lying, stupid, mentally ill, or some combination of the three, and to recommend that you get help.
And one more thing, cause now I’m curious–What the fuck does anything Harold Ford has to say about Egyptian protesters have to do with Bradley Manning?
Dee Fence Strategy
Manning was kidding when he chatted with Lamo. Manning is 150% absolutely totally innocent! The real leaker is still out there–think O.J. here.
Bradley is a well-known kidder; can’t anybody take a joke? He wasn’t under oath; everybody lies in chats.
If the leak doesn’t fit; you must acquit.
Allan
@Bloix: Unfortunately, my comment at #28 was probably overlooked by you because I inadvertently used a word that tripped the moderation trigger.
Now that it’s been freed by the admins, I don’t want you to miss it.
Angry Black Lady
@Bloix: wow. that’s a lot of speculation and assumptions being set forth as undisputed fact.
joe from Lowell
@PS: No, PS.
I called out some lousy reporters for some lousy reporting, and Bliox jumped in to insist that they so totally did not report bullshit.
Well, they did.
joe from Lowell
@Bloix: #25 –
No, it does not. A little Googling shows that Greenwald made an assertion that turned out to be false, and then tried to weasel his way out of it.
I’m going to let his “Update” speak for itself here:
Scrupulous.
joe from Lowell
@Phil Perspective:
Perhaps to you.
It seems to me that the charge that Manning wasn’t allowed to watch the news was bullshit from the beginning; that Greenwald used weasel-words to make the charge in the first place; and that he’s been watching news programming all along.
Zifnab
@Allan:
I don’t even fucking care. She gets a solid A for effort, and if any issue deserves to be relentlessly, obnoxiously flogged by the media, it is the Manning case.
Change his name to Judy Miller, and there would be a firestorm of fluffy news nonsense surrounding that man that would cloud the eyes of God.
joe from Lowell
@Bloix:
No, that’s your speculation, which you’re basing on some rather non-fact facts. (I see you’re still beholden to the long-disproved blanket thing).
Here’s the deal with that: I remember, before the Iraq War, not knowing one way or another whether the WMD charges were true. I’m not in Iraq, and I’m not a weapons inspector, so I just had to try to do my best to look at the claims people were making and the evidence that appeared in the media.
And time and again, the claims of the people making the charge turned out to be bullshit. They said the aluminum tubes could only be for enrichment, but they were shown to be wrong. They claimed that Iraq was trying to get yellowcake from Niger, but they were shown to be wrong. They claimed that Iraq had drones that could reach the US, and they were shown to be wrong.
I still never saw any proof that there were no WMDs in Iraq, but after you catch the car salesman in his third or fourth lie, you have to conclude that the car is a lemon.
So, yes, the credibility of the people making these charges about Manning’s detention matters a great deal to me.
Zifnab
@joe from Lowell:
Wait? WTF is not scrupulous about that? He got information that Manning didn’t have access to news. Then he got an update claiming Manning did have access to news. So he printed a retraction stating as much.
What did you want the man to do? Engage in a full kowtow of apology and spend the rest of the week rending his shirt and tearing his hair in penance?
joe from Lowell
@Zifnab:
No, he didn’t.
That’s the problem. He reported that the Lt. said he was wrong; then said that what people with personal knowledge of Manning’s detention said different; then said it was a small matter.
You know what I want him to do? Actually say that the fact he reported was wrong. He never did that.
joe from Lowell
@Zifnab: Here’s the quote again:
You read this – Lt. Villiard “claims there is a factual inaccuracy in what I wrote” but “That is square inconsistent with with reports from those with first-hand knowledge of Manning’s detention” – as a statement that Villiard is telling the truth and the charge was wrong?
And not a charge that Villiard is lying?
That’s sure not what it looks like to me.
Zifnab
Sorry. You’re right. He printed a clarification stating that the Lt. claimed he had access while others disputed it. Either way, he didn’t hold the information back. So, other than verbally minimizing it with the comment “small matter”, I still don’t see what your problem is.
Given that Greenwald is one of the bare handful of journalists giving Manning full coverage, and that said coverage is deflected and discouraged whenever possible by the military, it seems your real problem is that Greenwald is the one of the very few people you can site to even address claims regarding Manning’s detention.
I mean, so far the only person you’ve sited in your entire spiel was Greenwald himself. Had FDL and Greenwald not been issuing reports and follow-ups relentlessly, you wouldn’t have any case for dispute because NO ONE ELSE IS COVERING THIS.
Maine Independent
@Zifnab: One has to question Manning’s original mental state to take the risk of disclosing diplomatic cables. Was he aware of the consequences to his liberty and health? Or was it impulsive but well intentioned whistle blowing without regard for the consequences, which have been dire so far.
Seeing Harold Ford on Meet the Press and thinking that his observations were compelling is an indication that something is going on beyond what we can speculate. But remembering my stoner days, I’d probably react the same way to Harold Ford if very, very stoned. Or on antidepressants, as it was reported he is.
John Cole
For all the people getting wood that “SEE, HE HAS IT SO EASY, HE CAN WATCH TV,” I’d point out that “watching” tv is also the only time they allow him his eyeglasses:
Now go fap! fap! fap! about how Democrats can be tough on crime, too!
joe from Lowell
@Zifnab:
Actually, the “small matter” matter is a small matter compared to the larger matter of
His “correction” consists of all but accusing those who corrected him of lying. That means it’s not a correction, but a defense.
I’m sure it seems like that to you. I’ve explained what my real problem is already, in comment 49. Or perhaps I’ve “claimed” it, but my claim is “square inconsistent with with reports from” you.
joe from Lowell
@John Cole:
This is the sort of language John descends to when an argument isn’t going the way he wants it.
Yawn. “Who doesn’t want to wear the ribbon? Who?”
Spare me.
John Cole
@joe from Lowell: Where is the argument taking place here? I see bickering about a post Glenn made that he updated with a correction.
joe from Lowell
Shorter John Cole:
So the aluminum tubes line was bullshit. We’re talking about WMDs here! Dammit, we just don’t have time for your critical thinking!
I’m not going to take a discredited person’s word about a serious topic just because it’s a serious topic. To somebody not deeply invested in pushing a line, that’s not a controversial statement.
joe from Lowell
@John Cole:
John claims that the sky is blue, but that is is squarely inconsistent with reports from those with first-hand knowledge of the sky’s color. That’s a minor dispute in the scheme of things.
Quite the correction.
joe from Lowell
@John Cole:
Apparently, it’s taking place in someone’s pants, given your dick-obsession.
John Cole
Glenn said he can not view tv.
The LT. said that is not true.
Glenn said the LT. told him it was inaccurate he could not watch tv, but that others had contradicted that claim.
Months later, we have a report that Manning was allowed to watch MTP this week-end.
What argument am I missing? But go ahead, have ten more posts about this. For truth, justice, and the American way!
joe from Lowell
Whether Glenn was honest in his reporting and “correction.”
But I don’t think you’re “missing” it. I think you understand how that argument has turned out, and it’s got you in a bad mood.
John Cole
Of course he was honest- he said that Manning was not allowed to watch tv. The LT. called and told him he was. Glenn then reported that the Lt. has called and said Glenn is wrong, that he was allowed to watch tv, and then Glenn stated that this assertion by the officer has been disputed by others who have been in contact with Manning.
How in any way could that not be honest? What could he possibly have said that would have pleased you all? He has information from two sources, neither of which he can personally verify. One says they are keeping him from watching tv, the other says he is allowed to watch tv. He initially went with the information he had, the LT. contacted him and said it was inaccurate, so he then reported that the LT. says he is allowed to watch tv, but Glenn knows others who dispute this. What is so complicated?
Now you just have me flummoxed. I’m still not seeing any argument, let alone one going in a way that would put me in a “bad mood.”
What I see is a bunch of people emotionally invested in Glenn Greenwald, which is kind of weird.
lol
@John Cole:
And now we know definitively which one was telling the truth.
Still, we’re going to keep hearing months from now about how Bradley Mannning is being kept without even being charged and doesn’t have access to television news.
John Cole
@lol: No, we know that NOW he is being allowed to watch news related programs. Nothing proves one way or another that he was allowed to in months past.
dms
@soonergrunt: Well, duh. Why Manning might think Ford’s remarks were compelling.
Allan
No worries. Jane Hamsher is now attacking people on Twitter for writing mean things about Greenwald while he lies suffering in a hospital, unable to defend himself against his critics. Her attack poodle, @notlarrysabato AKA Ben Tribbet compiled a helpful blacklist of the monsters so that the FDL flying monkeys can swarm them with righteous indignation.
Just Some Fuckhead
John, if you love Glenn Greenwald so much, why don’t ya marry him? Bwahhhahahaaahaa.
HyperIon
@John Cole wrote:
you mean, like fuckhead? ;=)
General Stuck
Simply breathtaking. Yes, it is us Obot boot lickers who have exalted this individual to the progressive pantheon of truth on this blog, and throughout the left wing blogosphere.
Truth to power bitches, or at least bullshit for sake of the greater good, or some some such. All hail Obama worse than Bush !! No lies there.
Tim I
I despise Manning, for his despicable treason, but I must admit that being forced to listen to an asstard like Harold Ford (not to mention fuckwad David Gregory) would be cruel and unusual punishment.
Bloix
#49 – are you actually comparing the credibility of Glenn Greenwald with the credibility of Dick Cheney and George Bush?
joe from Lowell
@John Cole:
I’m not even going to argue here. I’m just going to run the “correction” again, because Greenwald’s behavior speaks for itself.
So honest.
That he was wrong? That he’d been corrected? Something phrased in a manner that doesn’t cast Villiard as a liar making “claims?” Something that isn’t he-said-she-said bullshit?
Oh, you’re so coy.
FTFW.
Personally, I’m emotionally invested in not being played for a sucker. YMMV.
joe from Lowell
@John Cole:
So, let me get this straight: for months, we’ve been told over and over that Manning is “cut off from the world,” and isn’t even allowed to watch the news. We get breathless daily updates on his confinement conditions. Nobody ever mentions a single word about any change being made in his TV privileges – until one day, out of the blue, his frequent visitor reports a conversation about what Manning saw on Meet the Press, without making any sort of comment about it being unusual at all…and it doesn’t prove one way or another about what he had been watching for the past few months?
You are willfully deluding yourself, to believe what you want to believe, and avoid having to acknowledge that you’ve been played. Because you’re emotionally invested. I’ve read you enough to know you’re sharper than this. You have to really try to maintain this fog.
joe from Lowell
Ha ha ha!
You know, I think I’m starting to see them, too. You’d think I’d called Bliox’s girlfriend fat.
Tell you what: I find Glenn Greenwald’s “reporting” about Bradley Manning to have marginally more credibility than George Bush and Dick Cheney circa 2002. They have both been caught repeatedly pushing bullshit information and using weasel-words to mislead the public about an issue that they are trying to use to push a political agenda.
Once you catch the car salesman in his third or fourth lie, you just have to walk away, no matter how much you really want to believe that car is a cream puff.
Bloix
Oh, and #72, here’s what the Constitution of the United States says about treason:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Now, which do you think Manning did? Did he make war on the US? Or did he adhere to its enemies? You know he’s not charged with treason, don’t you? Or are you just another one who thinks that when it comes to the protection of individual rights, the Constitution is worth about as much as a dirty dishrag?
soonergrunt
@dms: That just confirms that Manning’s judgment is piss-poor. Water is wet. Winter is cold. What the fuck else is new?
soonergrunt
@Bloix: Well, I can’t speak to the others believing or not believing he committed treason.
I do believe that there is an overwhelming probablility that he committed the crimes described in the charges and specifications.
It ain’t treason, but it’s pretty damn serious.
KCinDC
I think Manning’s opinion on Egypt might be even less useful than, say, Chuck Todd’s, especially if he’s been as isolated as FDL say he has. Seriously, it does seem that the guy is being mistreated, but that doesn’t make his wholesale leaking (as opposed to Wikileaks’ vetted leaking) heroic, and it certainly doesn’t make him any kind of expert.
burnspbesq
@Bloix:
” That doesn’t mean that the Government has a right to try to coerce a false confession out of Manning.”
The government doesn’t need to coerce a confession out of Manning. He admitted what he did quite some time ago, and the chat logs are admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule.
Not that it matters. Anyone who thinks Harold Ford makes sense is obviously not competent to stand trial.
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@John Cole:
And how do those others know? Sleepovers? MPs who pull guard shift on the cell block? Or from Manning himself, who really has little to lose by lying about it?
FlipYrWhig
I would have thought that admitting a fondness for Harold Ford would get Manning instantly blacklisted by all the leading ProgBlogs.
eemom
way late to this par-tay, but I see the BJPTB are back to their valorous knight-like defense of Greenwald against the barbaric, unwashed, odorous hordes of the blog’s own commenters.
Same with Hamsher on the other thread — and from AL of all people.
Srsly, these are some weird ass sacred cows y’all FPers got here.
I might try to figure out something funny to say about sacred cows and cudlips, if only it were 4 hours earlier.
soonergrunt
@FlipYrWhig: No. Since it’s their hero doing that, it means that Harold Ford may actually be on the road to redemption.