Now, if Eli or Peyton Manning miss one game because of any sort of interruption, people will be seriously pissed.
Fucking priorities, how do they work?
2.
Violet
When is the NYT going being the paywall so average Americans won’t even know what it says?
3.
john b
i think it’s funny that only took until obama said that his treatment was appropriate for nyt to write something like this. coincidence?
4.
Jim, Once
Wow. It’s good to see the Times calling out Obama on this, just like they did Bush II so many times. Oh, wait …
5.
The Political Nihilist Formerly Known as Kryptik
So what’s the running bet on when the NYTimes will be forced to shutter its doors for this?
6.
Jim, Once
@Jim, Once:
Snark aside … I am glad they’re questioning/condemning Manning’s treatment.
7.
numbskull
@john b: WTF ever. The President is being a 100% asshole on this issue. Period. He either has no control over the military, which means he’s a loser asshole, or he wants this to be happening, which means he’s an asshole asshle. Either way, he’s being a 100% asshole.
Yes, Obama is wrong on this. If this is the only thing you care about, then by all means act consistently with that view. Note, however, that there is this thing called “perspective.”
13.
Studly Pantload
John, I generally love your posts, but I gotta vote thumbs-down on the Atrios-style (yes, I am aware of all Internet traditions) entries that embed a link in a somewhat cryptic phrase. Call me a discerning reader who likes to know what sort of content he’s about to click on – especially at work, where time is limited.
There is something to be said about the technique though, since it does force you to actually visit the link in question. Some stories, topics, comments, etc. summarize enough that people don’t actually visit the link at hand, which can sometimes be a problem when the link-giver has completely warped the story linked to.
Don’t see it too often here, but I’ve seen that pulled off in comments sections elsewhere to annoying effect.
I get what you’re saying, but it’s a reason I rarely go to Atrios’ page, plus I trust the front-pagers here to give a decent roundown of the subject at hand, and then I can decide if it’s interesting enough to me to click the link. Well, that, and the commentariat here is without peer.
17.
The Moar You Know
He either has no control over the military
@numbskull: This appears to be the case. I think he could if he wanted to, but he has no military experience and it seems as though he defers to others with experience in matters with which he has none.
In general, this is not bad management practice, but given the current set of circumstances (and I’m not talking about Manning, could give a shit less about him, I’m talking about two hot wars that we’re fighting in the Middle East) it is a disaster.
18.
The Moar You Know
@john b: Glad someone else noticed that. Also noticed that today is the first time that someone at the NYT suggested that there was something wrong with the way we handle prisoners in this so-called “war on terror”.
Hypocritical two-faced lying fucking bastards.
19.
Alex S.
I think that it is relatively conclusive that Manning indeed leaked the information, which would make him a traitor. I don’t understand why there hasn’t been a trial yet. I don’t want to jump to conspiracy theories but this is getting less and less comprehensible every day. Obama probably doesn’t want to challenge the military-industrial complex right now, and I truly believe that there is an ongoing conflict between Obama and the military about the Afghanistan withdrawal.
20.
dslak
Why doesn’t that article mention that Glenn Greenwald lives in Brazil? That’s rather pertinent information, don’t you think?
Yes, thank goodness the top echelons were desperate, champing at the bit, pathetically eager to let homosexuals serve openly. Obama could never have persuaded/convinced/coerced them to act against their inclinations.
No, I think it’s more likely that he is a believer in the utility of the national security state. That’s of a piece with his positions on FISA and other War on Abstract Noun-related issues.
Well, that, and the commentariat here is without peer.
We’re without peers because we sit by ourselves on the far side of the playground picking our noses and mumbling about the political philosophies of second-tier Midwestern governors.
Exactly. The only way the NYT runs this editorial under the Bush/Cheney junta is to expose anyone objecting to torture as a terrorist sympathizer.
26.
numbskull
@burnspbesq: On this issue he’s either being a loser asshole or a political asshole. I was pretty specific about this being one issue, and predictably, mooks like you will chime in as though this one issue is all I care about. It’s the topic of the thread, get it? Why would you assume my opinion on this topic outweighs my opinion of what the President does on a variety of other issues in sum? Geeze, I’m supposed to be the numbskull.
Maybe you should reflect on why you would make such as lazy, immature assumption. Quietly. Off in the corner. Away from the adults.
27.
Villago Delenda Est
I would think that publishing BoBo, hiring Kristol, and publishing Douchehat would seal the deal on the NYTs hatred of America.
But then again, I remember that the NYT published the vile shitstain Gerth and his phony Clinton scandal and his bogus takedown of Wen Ho Lee based on the his source, a racist piece of Freeper shit Notra Trulock.
The NYT may have published the Pentagon Papers back in the day, but, as noted above, they said nothing while a deserting coward launched a war of aggression against Iraq for no reason other than Dick Cheney’s cronies needed to profit from it.
28.
bkny
@The Moar You Know: the original article had withering comments (many about that half-assed piece) about the abuse; and it was interesting that the rewritten article appearing later had no ability to comment.
29.
numbskull
@The Moar You Know: You make an excellent point, but the wars were ongoing and they are extremely complicated on many levels. The treatment of a single prisoner, arrested on your watch, ain’t. I’m not saying that there aren’t political ramifications for whatever he does with Manning, but what situation is this not true for, for any President?
30.
Dennis SGMM
@Studly Pantload:
Without peer? Damn! No wonder I can’t tie up my rowboat.
31.
numbskull
@Joey Maloney: OK, then you vote for option 2: he’s being an asshole asshole (AKA, a politician) at the expense of another’s life and at the expense of the Constitution. S.O.P. in the U.S.A.
Treason also has some pretty specific circumstances under which it can be brought up as a charge…because the Founders were wary of the grand old English tradition of screaming “treason” at the drop of a hat.
33.
stuckinred
Yea, I think the president needs to personally investigate every charge of prisoner mistreatment in the entire fucking world.
34.
numbskull
@john b: I agree that the timing is worth discussing. I think you have an interesting read on this – could you expound a little more?
35.
sukabi
@Loneoak: that and that he’s not been actually proven to have done anything yet… which is the purpose of the trial… the only “evidence” that’s been presented is selected bits of info the gov. has given to the press.
what’s amazing is that the “press” hasn’t once inquired about how ONE low ranking person could gain access to such a wide variety of sensitive material and merrily walk out of a secure facility with it…
@Loneoak:
he is being charged with, among other things, “aiding the enemy”. and that is a capital offense. but, the Army has decided not to recommend the death penalty.
“aiding the enemy” might not be the exact same charge as treason, but it’s going to be close enough for most people.
37.
srv
I was at a hotel last week, and one of the Fox blowhards, older guy with a big white hairdo (Napolatino?) was interviewing someone about Manning, and they were both ranting about his mistreatment.
There’s obviously someone in the command structure who doesn’t give a ratfuck, and knows Obama can’t or won’t do anything about. Not quite the same as tacit wink from Dick and Rummy and “taking the gloves off.”
not really. he had a “top secret” clearance, access to the email servers used by diplomats, and his job was to make sure that diplomats and intel agents could get access to all the info they needed. he had access to it all because his job required him to.
@numbskull: No, not exactly. Your aggressively scatological formulation assumes that Obama thinks Manning’s treatment is wrong but he’s acquiescing in it because he finds it politically convenient.
I think it’s just as likely that he approves of the situation. Or that he disapproves of it, but thinks that restraint in the exercise of executive power is a more important value to uphold.
None of us can know what’s in the man’s mind or heart. All we can do is agree or disagree with his actions.
40.
Dennis SGMM
Ah, yes, the NYT. That would be the same two-fisted pack of newshounds who sat on the NSA Warrantless Wiretap story until after the 2004 election because “it might have affected the outcome.”
Fuck ’em with a full-sized roll of newsprint.
41.
Svensker
The NYT doesn’t hate America. The NYT is being dragged around by the nose by Jane Hamsher! Also, too, they have not visited the prisoner. Which is conclusive proof that everything is fine and also GG lives in Brazil, therefore he sux and lies. (Did I leave anything out?)
42.
Zifnab
Philip Crowley, a State Department spokesman, committed the classic mistake of a Washington mouthpiece by telling the truth about Private Manning to a small group (including a blogger): that the military’s treatment of Private Manning was “ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid.” He resigned on Sunday.
Far more troubling is why President Obama, who has forcefully denounced prisoner abuse, is condoning this treatment. Last week, at a news conference, he said the Pentagon had assured him that the terms of the private’s confinement “are appropriate and are meeting our basic standards.” He said he could not go into details, but details are precisely what is needed to explain and correct an abuse that should never have begun.
After reading shit like that, you really have to wonder who the hell is behind the wheel at the White House. How am I supposed to take Obama seriously when he comes off as completely helpless and clueless on Manning’s detention situation.
Playing the, “I’m just the President – what do I know?” card isn’t going to fly.
“aiding the enemy” might not be the exact same charge as treason, but it’s going to be close enough for most people.
In the AGE OF TERROR we have really defined down “aiding the enemy” to a ridiculous degree. Remember that giving humanitarian aid, counseling on nonviolent conflict resolution, or supporting democratic process reforms counts as “material support” to terrorists. You may disagree here, but I think leaking diplomatic cables for the whole world to see is an entirely different ball game than, say, selling nuclear secrets to the KGB. Furthermore, to “aid the enemy” they kind of need to benefit from it and there’s no evidence that they have benefited. Quite the opposite if you give Wikileaks any credit for helping to spark the Tunisian revolution. There’s also no evidence that Manning actually supports any of our enemies. There might be some evidence that he thinks our foreign policy is fucked. But that is a poor standard for aiding the enemy.
44.
dslak
@Svensker: Yes, you left out that Manning looked “fine” to his father, thus making the issue moot (even his father’s admission that his son was being mistreated).
Greenwald living in Brazil is the most damning counterargument of all, however. You really don’t need to mention anything else.
As cleek points out, rank means nothing in reference to access to classified information. There were plenty of classified things I could never take a look at (no “need to know”) even thought I had a TS clearance. I could not just pull rank and walk into a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility) and start leafing through the files for jollies. However, there were plenty of low grade enlisted whose job it was to operate the SCIF who looked at that stuff and had access to it as a matter of course.
Heck, “aiding the enemy” came to mean daring to question the deciderer-in-chief’s dubious reasoning for launching the first war of aggression by a major power since 1939.
I think that it is relatively conclusive that Manning indeed leaked the information, which would make him a traitor.
No, it makes him a spy (i.e. guilty of espionage). To be a traitor (according to Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution) you must either wage war against the United States, adhere to its enemies, or give its enemies aid and comfort. Leaking documents to a web site clearly doesn’t constitute waging war or adhering to our enemies, so it only counts as treason if it rises to the level of giving aid and comfort. That seems like an impossible hurdle to clear, given that Wikileaks isn’t a declared enemy of the United States. There’s also the matter of requiring testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or a confession in open court. Maybe that’s why Manning hasn’t been charged with treason.
49.
cat48
His father’s interview was not included I see. The truth hurts sometimes. Dad has visited 8 or 9x, has actually seen & heard Bradley Manning. Odd he thinks that ‘he looks good’ and ‘has no complaints.’ I’m sure bloggers are discrediting Manning’s father and ripping him a new one, even as I type. Lord knows only bloggers know the real truth! Countertop check will be included no doubt.
@cleek: The problem with the “aiding the enemy” charge is that it’s going to be difficult to make stick.
He gave the information to Wikileaks. Wikileaks was not a declared enemy of the United States; neither self-declared nor declared as such by the US government. In fact, Wikileaks was (and still is) a registered news media site.
Now, should he be hammered for leaking? Yes, and there are plenty of charges that can be brought. But the ‘aiding the enemy’ charge (and others of that ilk) are questionable at best.
Doesn’t fit the narrative they were going for…..you know…..torturer in chief and all!
56.
soonergrunt
@cat48: go back to yesterday and the day before here on this site and you’ll see the very thing you’re talking about.
57.
dslak
It must be some kind of visual defect preventing cat48, Malron et al from reading the following portions of the Brian Manning interview on PBS:
MARTIN SMITH: You decided that you wanted to sit down and talk today because you want to complain publicly about the conditions of his imprisonment.
BRIAN MANNING, father of Pvt. Bradley Manning: Yes.
MARTIN SMITH: And those conditions are?
BRIAN MANNING: Well, he’s being — his clothing is being taken away from him, and he’s being humiliated by having to stand at attention in front of people, male or female that I — as far as I know, you know, that are fully clothed.
. . .
I mean, this is someone that has not been — you know, gone to trial or been convicted of anything. And that’s prompted me to — you know, to come out and go forward. I mean, they worry about people down in — you know, in a base in Cuba, but here they are, have someone in, you know, on our own soil and under their own control, and they’re treating him this way.
I mean, it’s — you know, I just can’t believe — you just can’t believe it. I mean, it’s shocking enough that I would come out of, you know, our silence, as a family, and say, you know, now then this — you know, you have crossed the line. This is wrong.
The NY Times fucked up big time regarding the NSA wiretap story, but they deserve credit for this editorial.
Any past crimes the NY Times has committed does not change the fact that Obama has his head stuck up his ass regarding the treatment of Bradley Manning.
60.
dslak
@cleek: I just think if you’re going to argue that Manning is not being mistreated or tortured, you could do better than to cite an interview with his father where he quite plainly says that his son is being mistreated. But I’m guessing that the people doing that haven’t actually read any of the interview except for the bit where his dad says he “looks good.”
61.
Jay B.
To sum up the apologists: Obama can’t possibly keep track of this one guy who is being singled out by the military because Manning totally deserves it anyway, in addition to the fact that Greenwald lives in Brazil.
Also, what Bradley Manning’s dad actually said, in addition to saying that he looks ok:
Brian Manning: Well he’s being–his clothing is being taken away from him and he’s being humiliated by having to stand at attention in front of people–male or female as far as I know–that are fully clothed. I mean this is someone who has not gone to trial or been convicted or anything. It’s shocking enough that I would come out of our silence and say, as a family, you know, now that–you’ve crossed the line. This is wrong.
you forgot this part: BRIAN MANNING: I read it in the statement that was put out by his civilian attorney.
This was not his statement about the treatment based on what he saw, or what his son has said to him. This was based on Coombs’ report. I’m not saying I agree with what has happened so far, nor do I know what the specifics are of his treatment, but you should at least try to cite the whole source.
@dslak:
and the next two lines in that interview are:
MARTIN SMITH: Who tells you that?
BRIAN MANNING: I read it in the statement that was put out by his civilian attorney.
don’t know about you all, but i don’t take the public statements of attorneys as 100% accurate and in no way biased so as to help their client. lawyers spin. it helps their clients.
in other words: i don’t think we actually know the full truth of what’s going on with Manning’s detention. and i’m not so interested in attacking Obama that i’d eagerly ally myself with someone who comes in at about 90% traitor, just based on the statements of his lawyer – especially when the guy’s own father says his son appears to be OK.
I’m not saying I agree with what has happened so far, nor do I know what the specifics are of his treatment, but you should at least try to cite the whole source.
I did you fucking moron. It’s a goddamn link to a fucking interview, which features the fucking entire Frontline piece. The point the other apologists were making that Manning’s dad said he looks fine and he had no complaints. Obviously, he does have complaints. It’s right there. IN THE FUCKING EXCERPT I QUOTED.
The Pentagon doesn’t deny that they forced him to do that — they claim instead it was protocol for prisoners on a suicide watch. Jesus fucking Christ. Questions! They were raised!
Complete and utter apologists.
66.
Mnemosyne
I think this kind of public pressure on Obama is a good thing no matter what the NYT’s motive was, but I would be a lot happier with this editorial if I didn’t know with absolute certainty that they never would have published it if the current president had an R after his name.
67.
dslak
@cleek: So the words of Brian Manning are sacrosanct only when he’s not saying that he obtained the information from someone else? You would have a better case if Brian Manning then said that he thought his son’s lawyer was lying, or that he thinks his son isn’t being mistreated. Saying that his son “looks good” is not him saying that everything he said before was false.
68.
dslak
We really shouldn’t attack Bush for engaging in authorizing torture or abuse of prisoners, when we don’t know the whole truth of what went on. For example, some of the detainees’ lawyers may have overstated their case. I’m just sick of all the Bush-bashing here.
69.
Jay B.
New shorter apologists: You better believe I’ll take the word of the Pentagon, when have they ever lied to anyone?
@dslak:
what reason would he have to say his son is OK, if his son is not OK ?
71.
ruemara
@Jay B.:
Fuck you you fucking fucktarded jackass. Is that the only think you know how to do, curse people out? And how am I an apologist for being skeptical because I don’t think I know the whole story. Idiot. No wonder leftists lose. The first thing you do is heap abuse on me, berate me for not reading the linked interview-ignore that I must have if I’m pulling out a portion of the interview-and scream that I’m an apologist. How about I am skeptical in an era where every institution seems to not know how to be truthful when there’s an agenda behind it. Moron.
I’m not ignoring that part. The Frontline page has the statement from the military, too, explaining how Manning ended up nude…the elastic in the shorts…..it says he chose to stand at attention ONE day….he was given a night garment to wear after the lst nite……
Due to the sources involved, which have distorted in the past; they and the military are both suspect to me. They both have reasons to be dishonest. I don’t just take one source’s word for something when they’ve been wrong in the past about other things.
I expect Manning’s attorney to vigorously advocate for him and to even distort the truth. I don’t accept deliberate distortions from anyone else as fair.
As far as the Maximum Security he’s under, like I said a few weeks ago, if one single blogger acted like they cared about prisoner abuses in the past, like ADAM SERWER, I would take them more seriously. This is purely political for most involved. My test is last years Georgia Prison Strike. It was not written about and prisoner abuse was rampant. Not a peep from anyone, let alone the press.
I guess “I’m NOT Bradley Manning” like the rest of the blogosphere is. Very trendy.
The poor little rich deserting asshole. Everyone beats up on his incurious ass.
74.
dslak
@cleek: How does him saying that his son “looks good” indicate that he doesn’t think he’s being mistreated? Is the argument supposed to go something like “no one who is abused or tortured can ever look okay to a visitor”?
but I would be a lot happier with this editorial if I didn’t know with absolute certainty that they never would have published it if the current president had an R after his name.
From the June 12, 2002 NYT Editorial on Padilla:
The government’s position is unacceptable. Our Constitution guarantees that those suspected of crimes must be informed of the charges against them, be able to confront their accusers, consult with a lawyer and have a speedy and open trial. But that means very little if the government can revoke all those rights merely by labeling someone a combatant. And as Mr. Muhajir’s case shows, the government is prepared to strip away the rights of American citizens as readily as those of foreigners.
That took all of .5 seconds. Should we find more? The Times sucks, but there are plenty of examples of them writing anti-Bush editorials. My God, you guys are really something.
76.
Villago Delenda Est
Manning’s treatment is a psychological ploy to get him to “flip” on Assange, and it doesn’t matter if any accusation made is true or not.
That’s what it’s about. They’re using all the tools available to try to force that issue.
Manning is being punished for his intransigence on flipping on Assange.
77.
dslak
@cat48: So your case then is that the entire lefty blogosphere was unconcerned about the treatment of prisoners of the War on Terror?
How does him saying that his son “looks good” indicate that he doesn’t think he’s being mistreated?
WTF. if you had even a slight hint your son was being tortured, you wouldn’t say “He looks good”, “He comes across to me as doing well”. you’d be screaming your fucking head off. at least i would.
Is the argument supposed to go something like “no one who is abused or tortured can ever look okay to a visitor”?
i think it goes more like this: unless Manning is now so brainwashed (cue ominous music!) that he can’t even signal the slightest distress to his father, over the course of nine visits, then there’s probably not much going on.
if you had even a slight hint your son was being tortured, you wouldn’t say “He looks good”, “He comes across to me as doing well”. you’d be screaming your fucking head off.
The man said that he thinks his son is being mistreated. Why should whether he meets our expected emotional reaction to that fact mitigate whether we take him at his word?
unless Manning is now so brainwashed (cue ominous music!) that he can’t even signal the slightest distress to his father, over the course of nine visits
There’s no need to appeal to brainwashing to explain it. Brian Manning indicates in the interview that the relationship with his son is fraught. Furthermore, he says that Bradley doesn’t even complain to him about being shackled, even though he is always shackled during his exercise periods. So that’s prima facie evidence that Bradley Manning does not complain to his father about his treatment at all.
That he does not mention his mistreatment to his father is not significant counter-evidence against Manning’s mistreatment.
81.
Maude
@cleek:
You know what point keeps getting missed? Manning’s lawyer hasn’t said his client is innocent of the charges. He doesn’t mention the charges, but rather, had made his client a victim.
I don’t think this is a good idea in the long run. For Manning.
82.
Ash Can
I agree that this whole situation stinks, and is definitely a black eye for the military, the administration, and Obama individually. Even if it’s standard procedure to treat soldiers held in military prisons like this, it still stinks. But I seem to recall reading some comment about Manning’s own lawyer delaying Manning’s trial date by requesting a special hearing (a sanity hearing, IIRC). That strikes me as just as bad — I’d like to see Manning go to trial yesterday if not sooner, and I don’t see how delaying the process does nothing but compound the problem. Yes, the abuse should stop, but in lieu of everyone from Obama on down to the jailers at Quantico having a come-to-Jesus moment and suddenly saying “let’s stop doing this,” the sure-fire way to stop the shit is to get Manning to trial. IMO, the delay is as unconscionable as his treatment is.
Absolutely not, we had pictures of WOT prisoners, if not all the facts. Anyone should be outraged by those.
However, no one besides Adam Serwer has ever cared about or written about John Doe, sitting in Maximum Security daily and the conditions they’re held in. Their conditions are very similar to Mannings now. This is what the US does daily and no one calls it “torture” or cares. Serwer has a reputation for being fair and honest in his writing. He seems to really care about the subject so I take him seriously.
I still think Maximum Security is necessary for Manning b/c I can imagine not all soldiers are happy about what he did. He could very well need protection from the other prisoners. I don’t know all the facts like most people don’t.
The man said that he thinks his son is being mistreated.
based on what he read. which was written by a biased party.
That he does mention his mistreatment to his father is not significant counter-evidence against Manning’s mistreatment.
true, but when the only evidence you have of “mistreatment” are hyperbolic statements by his attorney, counter-arguments don’t really need to be that strong.
Furthermore, he says that Bradley doesn’t even complain to him about being shackled, even though he is always shackled during his exercise periods.
Fuck you you fucking fucktarded jackass. Is that the only think you know how to do, curse people out?
Self-refuting argument, how does it work?
And how am I an apologist for being skeptical because I don’t think I know the whole story.
You are a skeptic on the side of absolute authority over that of the individual. You have completely bought into the he said/she said dichotomy we Lefties so deride. The real reason we lose election is because we’re so gosh-darn confused about everything.
Sure, the Pentagon is a quasi-criminal organization who has lied about everything for the past 50 years, but on the other hand the guy’s lawyer is a lawyer. Who to believe? The government agency which illegally bombed Cambodia or a single individual being accused of a capital crime for whistleblowing by a near-monolithic state?
If this was Bush, I would guess you’d be straight up appalled by Manning’s treatment without the tap dancing. 90% of you “skeptics” would. But now, it’s different. Because. Of something.
87.
Maude
@cleek:
I always look to see what the source is on a story. The source for WMD in Iraq before the war was Curveball. Need we say more?
My mom used to tell me don’t believe everything you read.
However, no one besides Adam Serwer has ever cared about or written about John Doe, sitting in Maximum Security daily and the conditions they’re held in.
I keep seeing this, but it’s pure bullshit. Just because YOU don’t read it doesn’t mean people aren’t out there protesting the prison system. Even on blogs! Online!
Here’s a story from 2009 in an obscure little corner of the media world called The New Yorker. You might want to start there!
Here’s another one: A little start up scrapper called “Wired”
Also noticed that today is the first time that someone at the NYT suggested that there was something wrong with the way we handle prisoners in this so-called “war on terror”.
Hypocritical two-faced lying fucking bastards.
um lolwhut?
At least Mr. Obama is not following Mr. Bush’s example of showy trials for the small fry — like Lynndie England of Abu Ghraib notoriety. But he has an obligation to pursue what is clear evidence of a government policy sanctioning the torture and abuse of prisoners — in violation of international law and the Constitution.
That investigation should start with the lawyers who wrote these sickening memos, including John Yoo, who now teaches law in California; Steven Bradbury, who was job-hunting when we last heard; and Mr. Bybee, who holds the lifetime seat on the federal appeals court that Mr. Bush rewarded him with.
These memos make it clear that Mr. Bybee is unfit for a job that requires legal judgment and a respect for the Constitution. Congress should impeach him. And if the administration will not conduct a thorough investigation of these issues, then Congress has a constitutional duty to hold the executive branch accountable. If that means putting Donald Rumsfeld and Alberto Gonzales on the stand, even Dick Cheney, we are sure Americans can handle it.
Once upon a time, it was the United States that urged all nations to obey the letter and the spirit of international treaties and protect human rights and liberties. American leaders denounced secret prisons where people were held without charges, tortured and killed. And the people in much of the world, if not their governments, respected the United States for its values.
The Bush administration has dishonored that history and squandered that respect. As an article on this newspaper’s front page last week laid out in disturbing detail, President Bush and his aides have not only condoned torture and abuse at secret prisons, but they have conducted a systematic campaign to mislead Congress, the American people and the world about those policies.
News accounts have also reminded us of the shameful state of American military prisons, where supposed terrorist suspects are kept without respect for civil or human rights, and on the basis of evidence so deeply tainted by abuse, hearsay or secrecy that it is essentially worthless.
Deborah Sontag wrote in The Times last week about the sorry excuse for a criminal case that the administration whipped up against Jose Padilla, who was once — but no longer is — accused of plotting to explode a radioactive “dirty bomb” in the United States. Mr. Padilla was held for two years without charges or access to a lawyer. Then, to avoid having the Supreme Court review Mr. Bush’s power grab, the administration dropped those accusations and charged Mr. Padilla in a criminal court on hazy counts of lending financial support to terrorists.
i hold no brief for the erstwhile paper of record, but that record is rather more complex than one might think. the NYT gets many things wrong, but it’s palpably wrong to argue that it never gets anything right.
I see. I agree, they probably didn’t charge him with treason because of the witness clause. But ‘adhering to the enemy’ is a question of definition. And you might call him a traitor for being a member of the US military and giving classified information to the international public (including the enemy), especially if his real intent was to sabotage the Afghanistan War. I was wrong though to use ‘traitor’ in the colloquial sense when legal terms are important.
based on what he read. which was written by a biased party.
So why not just make an argument about the (un)reliability of the source, rather than a strained argument about how a person can’t have been mistreated if they “look good” or don’t reveal being mistreated to a person with whom they have an admittedly fraught relationship?
when the only evidence you have of “mistreatment” are hyperbolic statements by his attorney, counter-arguments don’t really need to be that strong.
I agree, but the statements by Manning’s father aren’t much in the way of counter-evidence, as he doesn’t dispute the accuracy of the claim that Manning is being mistreated. If Manning’s lawyer is misrepresenting the facts, then it seems that he’s deceived Brian Manning, as well.
shackles are mistreatment, too ?
It should be clear from the context that this wasn’t the point. Brian Manning is asked if Bradley complains about being shackled. Brian indicates that Bradley does not complain about it. We know that Manning is shackled during his limited exercise periods. So there is at least one thing done to Manning, shackling, about which he does not complain to his father. This would mean that it is not unreasonable to think that Manning does not discuss the negative aspects of his treatment with his father.
92.
WyldPirate
But Cole–goddamit–It’s different when the Obama administration does rotten shit to its citizens. Why? Because He is President Immaculate Perfection! President Obama walks on water like our savior Jesus H Christ on a Piece of Toast(tm)!
The proper title of this post should be that “John Cole and the NY Times hate both America and President Obama”
So why not just make an argument about the (un)reliability of the source
which source? the lawyer or Manning’s father? i already said the lawyer’s bias is obvious and expected.
i don’t know if his father is reliable or not. i assume he is, since i have no reason to believe otherwise.
If Manning’s lawyer is misrepresenting the facts, then it seems that he’s deceived Brian Manning, as well.
frankly, Brian Manning seems a bit confused. apparently he read this lawyer’s report and it gets him all excited when he thinks about it. but when he’s asked about the specifics of his son’s state, by a sympathetic interviewer, he seems to forget all of that. he is perfectly calm and maintains, even as the interviewer nudges him and gives him opportunity after opportunity to say otherwise, that his son is OK. if you think your son is being truly mistreated, you wouldn’t say he’s “OK”, over and over, because that minimizes how much mistreatment you can claim he’s suffering.
This would mean that it is not unreasonable to think that Manning does not discuss the negative aspects of his treatment with his father.
ok. if you think the father doesn’t know anything, that means your only source for this claim of “mistreatment” is the lawyer’s report. and we know that’s hyperbolic and misleading.
94.
polyorchnid octopunch
@Loneoak: You’ve made a critical error is assumption; to wit, that the Tunisian dictatorship was an enemy. To the contrary, they were friends of the ship of US state. If the enemy of my friend is my enemy, the Tunisian people were the enemies, and the leaks helped them out an awful lot.
95.
dslak
So you can’t claim that someone is being mistreated unless you are engaging in hyperbole, or at least someone who is or has been mistreated can never “look okay”?
If those were in fact the only two options, I don’t see how his lawyer could be criticized for choosing option one if Manning is actually being mistreated.
96.
soonergrunt
@cleek: and yet, Jane Hamsher and Manning’s friend she goes with are just certain he’s being tortured, as is Greenwald, who can determine torture from Brazil, presumably using the same technology with which Bill Frist diagnosed Terri Schiavo as being asleep.
Sure, the Pentagon is a quasi-criminal organization who has lied about everything for the past 50 years, but on the other hand the guy’s lawyer is a lawyer. Who to believe? The government agency which illegally bombed Cambodia or a single individual being accused of a capital crime for whistleblowing by a near-monolithic state?
So you can’t claim that someone is being mistreated unless you are engaging in hyperbole, or at least someone who is or has been mistreated can never “look okay”?
?
you can claim whatever you like. but if it turns out you are exaggerating, then your credibility is diminished.
and if you are being mistreated and you can’t even convince your father of it, then you’re probably not being mistreated. maybe it sucks being in jail. but yeah, jail sucks. don’t joke about killing yourself, either. it just complicates things.
but look, bottom line, it’s not that complicated: i don’t find his lawyer credible on this. he’s obviously trying to get his client off the hook by exaggerating claims of mistreatment at the hands of his accusers. fine, that’s his job. but i’m not going to defend what appears to be a traitor based on what looks like a typical lawyer smoke screen. if some new evidence comes up, i’ll reconsider.
99.
dslak
During the witch hysteria in late Medieval Europe, the English crown considered itself to be civilized because they only allowed punishments which did not result in direct bodily harm to the person, such as sleep deprivation. If you were to visit a person supposedly being subject to sleep deprivation (but not being subject to it at the moment), they would probably “look good.”
Ergo, a person being subjected to sleep deprivation could not have been mistreated.
This editorial appears to be based on already-debunked information.
And every morning he is required to stand outside his cell, naked, until he passes inspection and is given his clothes back.
No, he is not.
101.
dslak
if you are being mistreated and you can’t even convince your father of it, then you’re probably not being mistreated.
That is, if you were trying to convince your father that you are being mistreated. If you aren’t trying to convince your father, but he still believes you’re being mistreated, just remember that Glenn Greenwald lives in Brazil.
don’t joke about killing yourself, either. it just complicates things.
Indeed it does. But violating official procedures to punish someone for being a jackass doesn’t look so great, either. At least in the first instance, the person isn’t acting as an agent of the state.
he’s obviously trying to get his client off the hook by exaggerating claims of mistreatment at the hands of his accusers.
It’s not unreasonable to think that Manning’s lawyer is overstating his client’s mistreatment, but it’s not obvious that he is doing so. In fact, that begs the question as to whether Manning is being mistreated.
Private Manning will also be required to stand outside his cell naked during a morning inspection, after which his clothing will be returned to him, said a Marine spokesman, First Lt. Brian Villiard.
Damn you, Scott Beauchamp! Now even the Marines are firebaggers!
That is, if you were trying to convince your father that you are being mistreated.
ok, i give up. why would he not? is he trying to hide it? if so, why?
come on, let’s hear the full conspiracy.
104.
dslak
@cleek: What’s conspiratorial about acknowledging the facts?
If he is being mistreated, it seems that he must be trying to hide it from his father. I could only speculate as to why, and my speculations would be quite irrelevant to the matter of the actual abuse taking place. All I know is that he has not told his father that he is being mistreated, and that he “looks good” when his father visits him.
Despite this, his father still believes that his son is being mistreated. Why is it so absurd if people other than his father believe so, too?
Damn you, Scott Beauchamp! Now even the Marines are firebaggers!
That story is from ten days ago, and leaves out that he has been issued some prison garb to sleep in. Yet another quarter-truth, like “Manning isn’t allowed to watch TV during his hour outside the cell.”
So, no, he is not ordered to stand at attention naked “every day.” In fact, he was never ordered to do so even once. He was ordered to stand at attention in his underwear, came out naked, and now stands for inspection wearing something else.
This has all been reported, and took about five seconds of googling to find. Forced nakedness would, indeed, be a serious violation of a prisoner’s rights. Good thing we know that that is not happening.
@dslak: Oh, and speaking of the Hamsher Brigade, now they’re saying, “OK, so he hasn’t been ordered to stand at attention naked, but the thing he wears is ugly.”
@dslak: And now, the “Hamsher Brigade,” as you call them, has changed the party line to “OK, Manning isn’t being ordered to stand at attention naked. At all. The military is right, he’s been assigned some prison sleeping thingie to wear during morning inspection, but that thing is really ugly.
Well, they’re right. That thing is seriously ugly.
Why is it so absurd if people other than his father believe so, too?
everything you and his father (sometimes) believe about this is based on the lawyer’s report, which we know is exaggerated – as joe from Lowell is patiently documenting here for us.
111.
dslak
@joe from Lowell: Yes, but it’s hardly debunked information if it came from the Marines holding Manning, and they have not told anyone differently. It may be false, but the claims of its falsity probably aren’t coming from someone that would be more reliable according to the NYT’s standards than the people in charge of the brig.
Fortunately, it seems that Manning was recently given a smock to wear while he sleeps (though it’s not clear how recently), but my understanding is that, until his dad sees him wearing the smock, only a deluded firebagger would believe that to be true.
112.
soonergrunt
@joe from Lowell: Well, the government said that in reply to a request for information from The News Hour:
KWAME HOLMAN: Today, the NewsHour asked the military for a response to Brian Manning’s assertions.
…
A statement from the Department of Defense said in part: “The circumstances of PFC Manning’s pretrial confinement are regularly reviewed, and complies in all respects with U.S. law and Department of Defense regulations.
…
“In recent days, as the result of concerns for PFC Manning’s personal safety, his undergarments were taken from him during sleeping hours. He was not made to stand naked for morning count, but on one day, he chose to do so. There were no female personnel present at the time. PFC Manning has since been issued a garment to sleep in at night. He is clothed in a standard jumpsuit during the day. None of the conditions under which PFC Manning is held are punitive in nature.”
…
In his interview with “Frontline,” Brian Manning says he saw no signs of suicidal intentions in his son.
The military could be lying of course. But maybe they aren’t. Either way, it has absolutely no bearing on Manning’s guilt or innocence.
113.
dslak
The military could be lying of course.
So were they lying when they told the NYT that Manning would have to stand at attention naked, or when they told News Hour that he did not?
Glenn Greenwald thinks the first, and he lives in Brazil, so I guess we know the answer.
114.
Corner Stone
@dslak: In Manning’s rebuttal he claims he was forced to stand at attention naked.
Military says he chose to, Manning says he was forced to.
Of course, after the admitted forced nudity (admitted by the military), the standing at attention part is secondary, at least IMO.
115.
dslak
@Corner Stone: I agree, but there’s little room here for saying that the claim that Manning was forced to stand at attention naked was debunked, or that only a deranged firebagger could think that it was so.
The firebaggers are guilty of interpreting every ambiguity as reflective of a systematic, top-down effort to deny Manning his basic rights. The anti-firebaggers are taking the position that every ambiguity is just the firebaggers being deranged.
But the fact that firebaggers have problems dealing with ambiguity doesn’t mean that the ambiguities aren’t there, nor that they don’t point to some serious problems with how Manning is being treated.
116.
soonergrunt
@dslak: Whatever Greenwald thinks is immaterial to the question of when and where the Marines might have lied about Bradley Manning’s nakedness.
The two factors are independent.
I’ve seen enough of Greenwald’s blather (or I should say blather that was attributed to him by believers) that turned out to be wrong to not believe that he’s got an infallible line to the truth.
I’ve also been in and around the military long enough to know that the human beings who are part of that institution do not always make the best choices or tell the truth entirely about the choices they’ve made.
Glen Greenwald may be right, simply by dumb luck. Stopped clocks, etc.
117.
dslak
@soonergrunt: Yes, and Greenwald’s place of residence is immaterial to the accuracy of what he says. Some here seem to have trouble recognizing that fact.
118.
Corner Stone
Why does The Guardian hate America? Bradley Manning: Cruel and unusual
“It would send a dire message to other tyrannies if the US itself responds to a leak as if it were itself a tyranny. It was, after all, the US top brass who failed to look after their data. We have not seen any heads roll there yet.”
Yes, but it’s hardly debunked information if it came from the Marines holding Manning
Dude, give it up. Even “Emtywheel” at Firedoglake is walking this one back.
Debunked. Falsified. Refuted. Demonstrated not to be the case. Call it whatever you want, but this charge goes in the same drawer as “Manning isn’t allowed to watch TV,” “Manning isn’t being given a blanket,” “Manning isn’t allowed to watch the news,” and “Manning is cut off from contact with the outside world.”
The charge is false.
but my understanding is that, until his dad sees him wearing the smock, only a deluded firebagger would believe that to be true.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. It looks like you’re throwing a tantrum because, yet again, you’ve been had.
122.
dslak
@cleek: It’s a rather imprecise term, as I have no truck with firebaggers myself. Insofar as it refers to those who think the a position is refuted by pointing out that Jane Hamsher holds it, or that Glenn Greenwald lives in Brazil, then yes, there’s a few of them around.
Well, the government said that in reply to a request for information from The News Hour:
Here’s the charge I was rebutting, from the NYT editorial:
And every morning he is required to stand outside his cell, naked, until he passes inspection and is given his clothes back.
That is a falsehood. He was not required to stand outside his cell, naked, even once.
And every morning he is required to stand outside his cell, naked, until he passes inspection and is given his clothes back.
124.
soonergrunt
@joe from Lowell: I understand that. I wasn’t arguing that point. I was providing the context for your assertion that the military disputed the claim that Manning has to stand naked in front of his cell every morning.
Dude, give it up. Even “Emtywheel” at Firedoglake is walking this one back.
It’s a good thing that I’m not defending the truth of the claim, then, but rather the reasonableness of someone believing it to be true, given the source. I wouldn’t suggest taking the position that our views about the truth of a claim should be based upon what someone at FDL thinks, but that’s your prerogative.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. It looks like you’re throwing a tantrum because, yet again, you’ve been had.
So you don’t know what I mean, but you know that I’m throwing a tantrum, and why? Surely you’re not just insulting me for disagreeing with you.
Anyway, it was a joke taking as a premise that the only things we can believe about Manning’s treatment are what his dad tells us. Unless, of course, what someone else says about the situation already conforms to what we think is the case.
So were they lying when they told the NYT that Manning would have to stand at attention naked, or when they told News Hour that he did not?
I notice that the NYT piece doesn’t include a quote. The two statements make sense together if the first statement included a statement that Manning had to stand during inspection without his clothes (meaning, wearing a smock) and only then had his clothes returned, and the NYT reporter, not unreasonably, interpreted “without his clothes” to mean “naked.”
Glenn Greenwald thinks the first…
Glenn Greenwald thinks a lot of things (or leads his readers to believe he thinks them). He thought that Manning wasn’t allowed to watch TV (or led his readers to think he did). He thought Manning wasn’t being given a blanket or pillow (or led his readers to think he did).
I don’t care about Greenwald living in Brazil, so much as his record repeatedly being caught presenting – willfully or not – false information.
I agree, but there’s little room here for saying that the claim that Manning was forced to stand at attention naked was debunked,
Ahem. The statement that has been debunked is, quote:
And every morning he is required to stand outside his cell, naked, until he passes inspection and is given his clothes back.
That statement has been debunked. Absolutely, 100%, wholly shown to be false. Bradley Manning is not required every morning to stand outside his cell naked.
or that only a deranged firebagger could think that it was so.
Who are you talking to? The entirety of my statement about the debunked claim:
No, he’s not.
It’s entirely possible for a charge that is later debunked to appear plausible; I’ve never claimed otherwise. In fact, I found the charge troubling when it was made, and I’m hardly a firebagger.
131.
dslak
The charge, if made at the moment, that Manning is now required to stand at attention naked, would be false. Whether there was an initial policy of making him do so, or whether he was ever forced to do so at some point, remains unclear.
That doesn’t mean that prior claims about it are debunked.
I’ve seen enough of Greenwald’s blather (or I should say blather that was attributed to him by believers) that turned out to be wrong to not believe that he’s got an infallible line to the truth.
Blather! Greenwald: Not infallible! Motive? Probably hatred of our freedoms.
I’ve also been in and around the military long enough to know that the human beings who are part of that institution do not always make the best choices or tell the truth entirely about the choices they’ve made.
Not always the best choices! Don’t always tell the truth entirely! Human frailty. Motive? Gosh darnit, who knows?
Insofar as it refers to those who think the a position is refuted by pointing out that Jane Hamsher holds it…
You seem a bit confused.
The link I provided was to Emptywheel, not Hamsher, and rather than showing that she “holds” the belief that Manning is being required to stand naked, it shows that she is now denying that Manning is being forced to stand naked. While pushing another line of argument that it doesn’t really matter that Manning isn’t being required to stand naked.
In court, they call this a “statement against interest,” and such statements are given sufficient credibility that they are one of the few exemptions to the rule against hearsay evidence.
They’re being dragged around by the nose by Jane Hamsher, too. Duh. Also, no one told them Glenn Greenwald’s articles are too long and he lives in Brazil.
135.
soonergrunt
@Jay B.: Pardon me, but where do I return the straw?
136.
Keith G
To me it seems quite likely that initially some of Manning’s jailors took the extra effort to send Manning a special message. Now, it is equally likely that Manning’s treatment has been dialed down to the harshest that can survive strict scrutiny.
137.
dslak
@joe from Lowell: Yes, but I’ve never claimed that Manning is forced to sleep naked at the present time. What I’ve said is that it’s reasonable to believe that Manning was forced to sleep and stand at attention naked, and that it is still reasonable to believe that this took place. This holds even if Manning is not currently being forced to do so.
You attribute Greenwald the worst of faith in everything you post. But the unbelievably passive voice you attribute to the actions of people in the armed forces — instead of calling them lying scumbags interested in mainly covering their asses — to simple humanity. It’s fucking hilarious.
Sticking up for the individual who is facing the enmity of entire U.S. Government, including the Executive Branch, is widely seen as dubious — yes, yes, Manning should receive a fair trial, and then spend the rest of his life in prison. But you never once attribute simple “human” failings to whatever it is you think Greenwald failed at, or lied about. That’s not OK around here. NO, he must have lied about things, or slanted them in a way to make Manning a martyr, because…what, he’s fundamentally dishonest? Why do you think Greenwald gives a shit about this case? Many here think it’s because he’s got a hard on to criticize the Obama administration.
Yet, in the same post, you give the military apparatchiks the benefit of the doubt, that they lie BECAUSE of their inherent humanity. And, sigh, while that’s regrettable, such is the way of things.
It’s a ridiculous double standard. I know people can make honest mistakes. I know people lie. It’s infinitely easy to tell the difference when you think about the motives. It’s laughable that you attribute bad faith to the guy with ZERO institutional support but attribute something entirely different for those who CONTROL it.
It’s a good thing that I’m not defending the truth of the claim, then, but rather the reasonableness of someone believing it to be true, given the source.
Is there some special reason you decided to “defend” that reasonableness to me? Since I was only discussing the truth of the claim, and you responded to me, you’ll have to forgive me for thinking your comment was on point.
So you don’t know what I mean, but you know that I’m throwing a tantrum, and why?
Yes, tantrums are almost always nonsensical, recognizable, and have an easily-traceable cause.
Did you read the link I provided? Give. It. Up. Even the people who pushed this story are backing off of it, and coming up with an excuse for why it doesn’t matter that their facts were wrong, because they’re still right, dammit.
The charge, if made at the moment, that Manning is now required to stand at attention naked, would be false. Whether there was an initial policy of making him do so, or whether he was ever forced to do so at some point, remains unclear…That doesn’t mean that prior claims about it are debunked.
This is growing tedious.
OK, I’ll quote the debunked claim AGAIN:
And every morning he is required to stand outside his cell, naked, until he passes inspection and is given his clothes back.
As I’ve said – as I’ve only ever said – this claim has been debunked. If you wish to defend some other claim, one I have not written has been debunked, you go right ahead.
Please stop defending it to me, however, as if it has anything to do with my comment.
Yes, exactly. Since you didn’t notice, you provided exactly the same link I did, the one that states that Manning is not being required to report naked, and wearing a totally ugly smock.
From someone who used to claim that he was required to stand naked, and now acknowledges that he is not, that is known as “walking it back.”
144.
dslak
@joe from Lowell: Perhaps because more is needed to refute a claim than saying that it’s been debunked, especially when there are documented cases of people saying that it is the case?
As I’ve said – as I’ve only ever said – this claim has been debunked.
This is rather minor quibbling, though. Saying that it has been debunked implies that there was nothing to it in the first place. The worst that can be said about the editorial in the NYT so far is that Manning is no longer forced to sleep and stand at attention naked.
Yes, tantrums are almost always nonsensical, recognizable, and have an easily-traceable cause.
Right, such as someone going off the handle at another person, merely for disagreeing with them. But that would be projecting, wouldn’t it?
145.
soonergrunt
@Jay B.: Where did I ever attribute anything but error to Greenwald, you stupid bastard?
And leaving aside the fact that I’ve outright stated that sometimes people in the military don’t do the right thing and sometimes they even lie to cover it up, I don’t know where I’m supposed to take everything they said at face value.
Did your parents have any children who lived? Christ but you’re not only one of the dumbest motherfuckers around these parts, but one of the loudest.
OK. I get it now. I’m a vet, and so all you people who fancy yourselves to be some kind of Manichean anti-establishment super heroes standing up for the rights of the little guy need me, for some fucked up reason known only to you all, to agree with you that the military, the police, and probably the postal service since they wear uniforms too, are all eeeeevil authoritarians ™ bent on enslaving people, taking away their freedoms, and probably forcing them to tie their shoes left over right.
Once, just once, I’d like a troll who actually addresses what I’ve said. And while we’re on the subject of shitbrained egotistical fuckwits like yourself, perhaps you could ask someone with more than a hardon and six working braincells to explain to me why I seem to collect the members of the fraternal brotherhood of paste-eating morons.
edited for clarity.
Do you actually understand the meaning of “tense”? For example “is” and “was” refer to two separate meanings of time. One is the present. Something that is happening “now” (e.g. “Manning is being forced to stand naked” compared to “Manning was forced to stand naked”) For the former to be debunked is easy, because it is happening now and people have seemed to confirm that he is not being forced.
But you want to be very clever by ignoring the word (note the tense) “was”, which isn’t debunked. And hasn’t been.
This is what the Pentagon says:
Also, there is no ‘daily disrobing and various other humiliations.’ In recent days, as the result of concerns for PFC Manning’s personal safety, his undergarments were taken from him during sleeping hours. PFC Manning at all times had a bed and a blanket to cover himself. He was not made to stand naked for morning count but, but on one day, he chose to do so. There were no female personnel present at the time. PFC Manning has since been issued a garment to sleep in at night. He is clothed in a standard jumpsuit during the day.
Now, I wouldn’t believe this for any reason at all — but note the changes in tense. Why do you think playing this stupid game “I’m not saying ‘was’, I’m saying ‘is’?” strengthens your anti-Manning argument? It looks like you are playing stupid semantic games that depend on what the meaning of “is” is.
I suspect I’m a tad older than most of those writing about being “sickened” and finding things “fucking hilarious.” Why, I’m old enough to remember how Newt Gingrich used to operate during Bill Clinton’s presidency.
He’d make a charge, and it would be debunked within a few days. That’s ok, because by that time, he’d have another charge ready to go. That would also be debunked within a few days. Same thing for charge #3, then charge #4, then charge #5.
And then, after charge #5 was debunked, he’d turn around and say, “Oh, but will all of these charges, there’s a cloud over the presidency. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.”
Of course, the rational response was exactly the opposite: once it became clear what the pattern was, a rational person seeking to be objective would conclude that the pattern of charges made Newt less credible, not Bill. But, then, those people who were really, really committed to believing in Bill Clinton’s corruption didn’t see it that way at all.
148.
Jay B.
OK. I get it now. I’m a vet, and so all you people who fancy yourselves to be some kind of Manichean anti-establishment super heroes standing up for the rights of the little guy need me, for some fucked up reason known only to you all, to agree with you that the military, the police, and probably the postal service since they wear uniforms too, are all eeeeevil authoritarians™ bent on enslaving people, taking away their freedoms, and probably forcing them to tie their shoes left over right
.
No, I just think you are naturally a bootlicking asshole who didn’t need the military to reinforce that natural attraction to authority. I love the “i’m a vet” shtick though. Appeal to authority never gets fucking old. Who gives a shit?
Perhaps because more is needed to refute a claim than saying that it’s been debunked, especially when there are documented cases of people saying that it is the case?
It just keeps getting more tedious.
OK, I’ll quote it again:
And every morning he is required to stand outside his cell, naked, until he passes inspection and is given his clothes back.
There is not a single documented case of Manning being “required to sand outside his cell, naked.” Not one. There was a statement, immediately refuted, stated that his clothes would be confiscated and returned, not that he would be required to be naked while they were confiscated. And as we now know, he was not required to be naked, but issued a smock.
Saying that it has been debunked implies that there was nothing to it in the first place.
I’m sorry you took it that way. My point was the claim has been shown to be false, and was at the time the NYT editor wrote his piece.
150.
dslak
It’s not clear how comparing skepticism regarding the Pentagon treatment of Manning is comparable to Gingrich’s personal crusade against Clinton, but it could be a tantrum reacting to the fact that “Manning is no longer forced to sleep and stand at attention naked” does not entail “Manning was never forced to sleep and stand at attention naked.” That is, he’s been had.
151.
dslak
There is not a single documented case of Manning being “required to sand outside his cell, naked.” Not one.
Except for the one instance where he was naked, but which the military claims he did so of his own volition. And maybe he did, but it’s not obvious that he did so.
I’m sorry you took it that way.
I took it that way because that’s what the word ‘debunked’ means. If you don’t mean it that way, you should use another word.
152.
Corner Stone
“his undergarments were taken from him during sleeping hours.”
…
“PFC Manning has since been issued a garment to sleep in at night.”
Indeed, I understand the word “tense.” Why, I understand it well enough to know that in the sentence I quoted from the NYT editorial:
And every morning he is required to stand outside his cell, naked, until he passes inspection and is given his clothes back.
the “tense” is “present tense.”
I also understand “tense” well enough that the present tense refers to both 1) one-time incidents (You ARE an ignoramus who is making himself look like a moron by lecturing me about tense while bungling it yourself in your comment) and 2) ongoing or regularly-occuring action (You ARE an ignoramus who makes himself look like a moron in his comments).
And every morning he is required to stand outside his cell, naked, until he passes inspection and is given his clothes back.
The claim in this statement, which is made in the present tense, and refers to ongoing or regularly occurring action, has been debunked.
Why am I doing this? I’m going this because I, unlike you, care about whether or not the charges made in this editorial, and in pieces written about this case in general, are true.
This one – the one made in the present tense – is not true. It has been debunked. You should care about that. But you don’t.
…but it could be a tantrum reacting to the fact that “Manning is no longer forced to sleep and stand at attention naked” does not entail “Manning was never forced to sleep and stand at attention naked.”
OK, I’ll quote the debunked falsehood AGAIN, and let you and Jay B. work through your confusion:
And every morning he is required to stand outside his cell, naked, until he passes inspection and is given his clothes back.
I’m done explaining this to you. If you want to play the “You can’t make me say it game” any more, you’re going to have to play solitaire.
You may disagree here, but I think leaking diplomatic cables for the whole world to see is an entirely different ball game than, say, selling nuclear secrets to the KGB. Furthermore, to “aid the enemy” they kind of need to benefit from it and there’s no evidence that they have benefited. Quite the opposite if you give Wikileaks any credit for helping to spark the Tunisian revolution. There’s also no evidence that Manning actually supports any of our enemies. There might be some evidence that he thinks our foreign policy is fucked. But that is a poor standard for aiding the enemy.
Except for the one instance where he was naked, but which the military claims he did so of his own volition. And maybe he did, but it’s not obvious that he did so.
So, in other words, there is not one DOCUMENTED case. There is a case which even you admit has not been documented. The word “except” comes from “exception,” a situation which is at odds with the general rule. For you to have properly used the word “except,” you would have to show a documented case, which you acknowledge doesn’t exist.
You are being completely obtuse. I know what you are saying, you are being disingenuous to what “debunked” means. Let’s say it’s a fact it’s not happening now. Sure. It doesn’t stand to reason it NEVER happened. But you know that. You are trying to be clever in a way that doesn’t warrant it.
EDIT: Or, judging by your previous two posts, completely ignorant. Whatever. The only proof you’ve offered is the Pentagon’s word and the meaning of “is”. That really isn’t “debunked”. Believe whatever you want, really. I’m sure given the track record of our Department of Defense, you’ll be “proven” right. Just around the time they find the WMD in Iraq.
“his undergarments were taken from him during sleeping hours.”
…
“PFC Manning has since been issued a garment to sleep in at night.”
OK, I’ll quote the debunked, falsified, wrong statement from the NYT editorial AGAIN:
And every morning he is required to stand outside his cell, naked, until he passes inspection and is given his clothes back.
Hey, look at that! It’s not a statement about whether he sleeps naked!
It’s also not a statement about whether he once showed up naked to inspection!
And it’s not in the past tense!
Hey, I’ve got a crazy idea: how about admitting I’m right, and the claim the NYT made – the actual claim I quoted, not some other, somewhat-related claim – has been shown to be false?
Naaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh!
160.
dslak
The word “except” comes from “exception,” a situation which is at odds with the general rule.
The general rule in this case being “There’s no documented instance of Manning being forced to stand naked.” That’s right, I know how counter-examples work.
I think your etymology might be backwards, however, as it seems unlikely that the verb ‘except’ came from the combination of itself with the suffix making it a noun, then subtracting it again.
161.
dslak
Hey, I’ve got a crazy idea: how about admitting I’m right, and the claim the NYT made – the actual claim I quoted, not some other, somewhat-related claim – has been shown to be false?
So you no longer claim that Manning has never been forced to sleep and stand at attention naked, but only that he is not forced to do so now?
interesting that the rewritten article appearing later had no ability to comment.
i’ve been wondering for a while what determines if an article in the NYT gets comments. i often spend more time reading the comments (in reader recommendation order) than the original post. but i have never seen the phenomenon you have just noted. interesting, indeed.
There was a statement, immediately refuted, stated that his clothes would be confiscated and returned, not that he would be required to be naked while they were confiscated. And as we now know, he was not required to be naked, but issued a smock.
I’m sure given the track record of our Department of Defense…
The DoD told me Manning was allowed to watch television. The DoD told me he was allowed to watch news programming. The DoD told me he was given blankets. The DoD told me he was not required to report for inspection in the morning naked.
You believed the opposite in every single one of these matters, and you were wrong in every single instance.
So the question is, when will YOU stop being a sucker? Is there going to come a point where you notice that you keep gullibly accepting whatever charge is made in the Manning case? The sixth time you’re proven wrong? The seventh? The tenth?
I don’t think there will be. I think you’re as committed to your storyline as I am to following where the facts take me.
So you no longer claim that Manning has never been forced to sleep and stand at attention naked
I have never once claimed that Manning has never been forced to sleep naked. You have a serious problem with reading comprehension.
I take back my suggestion that you and Jay B. put your heads together. That would be a bad idea.
As for being forced to stand at attention naked, I’m just going to quote the long-debunked NYT statement, so you can see what I’ve had to say about that:
And every morning he is required to stand outside his cell, naked, until he passes inspection and is given his clothes back.
Yes, if you carefully edit my comment to take out the part that makes clear that it is a comment about Manninig having to stand naked during morning inspection, you can pretend that I claimed Manning was never required to be naked at any time in his entire life.
But, then, just doing such a thing says something quite unflattering about the person who would engage in such easily-demonstrated dishonesty.
Nobody seems to be able to defend the false, debunked claim:
And every morning he is required to stand outside his cell, naked, until he passes inspection and is given his clothes back.
So, instead, you’ve decided to argue a bunch of other things that have nothing to do with what I wrote.
OK, I guess we’re done here. So, did the NYT lie, or were they lied to? I think the latter, given the amount of misinformation being put forward about the case.
The DoD told me Manning was allowed to watch television. The DoD told me he was allowed to watch news programming. The DoD told me he was given blankets. The DoD told me he was not required to report for inspection in the morning naked.
All but the last I never commented on, nor found them to be more objectionable than the 23 hours of solitary he enjoys, which to me is really the crux of the matter. You haven’t proven shit about the latter, which falls into the SOP of humiliating prisoners — I’m assuming you’ve heard about that. Last I saw of the DoD on that matter, they denied doing it, which, of course, was a lie.
So the question is, when will YOU stop being a sucker? Is there going to come a point where you notice that you keep gullibly accepting whatever charge is made in the Manning case? The sixth time you’re proven wrong? The seventh? The tenth?
It is indisputable that Manning is being held in extraordinary circumstances which may, or may not, include the usual humiliation the DoD already uses on people to “fight” our War on Terror, and already includes solitary confinement which the UN and others already consider “torture”. What am I supposed to be wrong about?
169.
Corner Stone
@joe from Lowell: Since dishonesty is your standard M.O. here, I’ll just quote this from Steve:
@joe from Lowell: Ok, I can recognize the sound of someone getting angrily defensive because they were caught trying to BS. I like how your fake quote in comment #33 had an ellipsis inside the quotation marks to try and make it look like an authentic quotation as opposed to something that sprang entirely from your own mind. What I don’t understand is why it’s so important for you to be correct about something so trivial that you would try to make up stuff and bully anyone who questions you.
No, if you read the article, she says that he WAS required to be naked but that after that got publicized, they gave him a very uncomfortable smock to wear at night.
Emptywheel never said he had not been stripped. She said he was no longer stripped.
The claim in this statement, which is made in the present tense, and refers to ongoing or regularly occurring action, has been debunked.
The Times writer is inaccurate. But his claim has not been “debunked”. Manning was apparently at one point required to be naked. He no longer is. Emptywheel says the reason he no longer is is because various people complained loudly enough.
No, joe does not see the difference. He’s repeatedly made the broad claim that Emptywheel is “walking back” a claim about Manning’s forced nudity. So now he will wiggle sideways to a new starting point and try arguing from there. Then he’ll claim he’s quite a bit older than anyone else discussing the matter and he remembers things Newt did 15 years ago.
173.
dslak
As for “undocumented” incidents of Manning being forced to stand naked, there’s :
According to David Coombs, Manning’s lawyer, the soldier was then left without clothes for seven hours. When the wake-up call sounded for the detainees at 5am, in an act of forced humiliation, Manning was made to stand naked at the front of his cell.
Is it possible this event never happened? Yes. Can it definitively be said that it never happened, based upon currently available evidence? No.
That took all of .5 seconds. Should we find more? The Times sucks, but there are plenty of examples of them writing anti-Bush editorials. My God, you guys are really something.
Wow. Your persecution complex has really gotten out of control if you’re now upset that the honor of the New York Times has been impugned because I pointed out that — gasp! — they favor Republicans over Democrats, something they’ve demonstrated over and over again for the past 15 years.
I know it’s odd of me, but after Whitewater, Wen Ho Lee, Judy Miller, and multiple other examples, I don’t trust the New York Times. I realize that they’re saying something you desperately want to hear, but insisting that they consistently bashed Bush over the “war on terror” that they helped hype is ridiculous.
ETA: If your editorial board is publishing tsk-tsk editorials about the treatment of Jose Padilla while your news division is hyping him as the most scariest and dangerous terrorist since Obama bin Laden himself, then the opinion of that editorial board seems more like a CYA, doesn’t it?
175.
soonergrunt
@Mnemosyne: Go back through this thread to see this goofy little fuck’s persecution complex in action.
Some nobody on the internet points out that Greenwald has been wrong before, and this little pissant just tees off.
The funny thing is that with post after post after post of variations on the theme of “Glenn Greenwald said…” he accuses me of “appeal to authority.”
He hasn’t done anything of note in his life, but he has defended Glenn Greenwald on the internet from somebody who said that GG had been wrong. He can now die fulfilled. Hopefully in about 30 minutes. In a fire.
176.
Triassic Sands
I read the condemnations of Bradley Manning and I wonder, “Would they have been the same if Manning had been imprisoned for the same actions when Bush was president?”
177.
soonergrunt
@Triassic Sands: I would’ve. I had no use for those who went AWOL when Bush was President, and I have no truck with former LTC Terry Lakin.
And I don’t buy the whole of Manning’s story about his supposed whistle blowing.
Right is right, and wrong is wrong. American Soldiers do not get to substitute their judgment for that of elected officials without being held accountable. Our system doesn’t work any other way. And that doesn’t mean, and you’ll never find anywhere I said anything like it does mean, that Manning or anybody else should be mistreated.
Lakin and Manning are opposite sides of the same coin.
Comments are closed.
Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!
BGinCHI
America goes about its business…..
Now, if Eli or Peyton Manning miss one game because of any sort of interruption, people will be seriously pissed.
Fucking priorities, how do they work?
Violet
When is the NYT going being the paywall so average Americans won’t even know what it says?
john b
i think it’s funny that only took until obama said that his treatment was appropriate for nyt to write something like this. coincidence?
Jim, Once
Wow. It’s good to see the Times calling out Obama on this, just like they did Bush II so many times. Oh, wait …
The Political Nihilist Formerly Known as Kryptik
So what’s the running bet on when the NYTimes will be forced to shutter its doors for this?
Jim, Once
@Jim, Once:
Snark aside … I am glad they’re questioning/condemning Manning’s treatment.
numbskull
@john b: WTF ever. The President is being a 100% asshole on this issue. Period. He either has no control over the military, which means he’s a loser asshole, or he wants this to be happening, which means he’s an asshole asshle. Either way, he’s being a 100% asshole.
Cue the apologists…3…2…1…
Jim, Once
@The Political Nihilist Formerly Known as Kryptik: Yeah, they better watch out. They’re going to have O’Keefe after them any minute now.
john b
@Jim, Once:
to be clear, me too.
it’s just funny the timing of these things.
we might actually have a functioning press if Obama decides to take totally deplorable stances on all sorts of things.
The Political Nihilist Formerly Known as Kryptik
@Jim, Once:
What’s sad is how serious a threat that actually is. In a fair world, that would be a joke, and one worthy of a snickerfit.
john b
@numbskull:
i agree.
burnspbesq
@numbskull:
Love your handle. It suits you.
Yes, Obama is wrong on this. If this is the only thing you care about, then by all means act consistently with that view. Note, however, that there is this thing called “perspective.”
Studly Pantload
John, I generally love your posts, but I gotta vote thumbs-down on the Atrios-style (yes, I am aware of all Internet traditions) entries that embed a link in a somewhat cryptic phrase. Call me a discerning reader who likes to know what sort of content he’s about to click on – especially at work, where time is limited.
Oh, and: Stalin. Denounce. Rinse. Repeat.
The Political Nihilist Formerly Known as Kryptik
@Studly Pantload:
There is something to be said about the technique though, since it does force you to actually visit the link in question. Some stories, topics, comments, etc. summarize enough that people don’t actually visit the link at hand, which can sometimes be a problem when the link-giver has completely warped the story linked to.
Don’t see it too often here, but I’ve seen that pulled off in comments sections elsewhere to annoying effect.
Loneoak
@Studly Pantload:
Readership capture!
Studly Pantload
@The Political Nihilist Formerly Known as Kryptik:
I get what you’re saying, but it’s a reason I rarely go to Atrios’ page, plus I trust the front-pagers here to give a decent roundown of the subject at hand, and then I can decide if it’s interesting enough to me to click the link. Well, that, and the commentariat here is without peer.
The Moar You Know
@numbskull: This appears to be the case. I think he could if he wanted to, but he has no military experience and it seems as though he defers to others with experience in matters with which he has none.
In general, this is not bad management practice, but given the current set of circumstances (and I’m not talking about Manning, could give a shit less about him, I’m talking about two hot wars that we’re fighting in the Middle East) it is a disaster.
The Moar You Know
@john b: Glad someone else noticed that. Also noticed that today is the first time that someone at the NYT suggested that there was something wrong with the way we handle prisoners in this so-called “war on terror”.
Hypocritical two-faced lying fucking bastards.
Alex S.
I think that it is relatively conclusive that Manning indeed leaked the information, which would make him a traitor. I don’t understand why there hasn’t been a trial yet. I don’t want to jump to conspiracy theories but this is getting less and less comprehensible every day. Obama probably doesn’t want to challenge the military-industrial complex right now, and I truly believe that there is an ongoing conflict between Obama and the military about the Afghanistan withdrawal.
dslak
Why doesn’t that article mention that Glenn Greenwald lives in Brazil? That’s rather pertinent information, don’t you think?
Joey Maloney
He either has no control over the military
Yes, thank goodness the top echelons were desperate, champing at the bit, pathetically eager to let homosexuals serve openly. Obama could never have persuaded/convinced/coerced them to act against their inclinations.
No, I think it’s more likely that he is a believer in the utility of the national security state. That’s of a piece with his positions on FISA and other War on Abstract Noun-related issues.
Loneoak
@Studly Pantload:
We’re without peers because we sit by ourselves on the far side of the playground picking our noses and mumbling about the political philosophies of second-tier Midwestern governors.
Studly Pantload
@Loneoak:
Well, no one ever said being without peer is pretty.
Loneoak
@Alex S.:
“Traitor” is a big word. He isn’t actually being charged with treason. That’s a capital offense.
James E Powell
@Jim, Once:
Exactly. The only way the NYT runs this editorial under the Bush/Cheney junta is to expose anyone objecting to torture as a terrorist sympathizer.
numbskull
@burnspbesq: On this issue he’s either being a loser asshole or a political asshole. I was pretty specific about this being one issue, and predictably, mooks like you will chime in as though this one issue is all I care about. It’s the topic of the thread, get it? Why would you assume my opinion on this topic outweighs my opinion of what the President does on a variety of other issues in sum? Geeze, I’m supposed to be the numbskull.
Maybe you should reflect on why you would make such as lazy, immature assumption. Quietly. Off in the corner. Away from the adults.
Villago Delenda Est
I would think that publishing BoBo, hiring Kristol, and publishing Douchehat would seal the deal on the NYTs hatred of America.
But then again, I remember that the NYT published the vile shitstain Gerth and his phony Clinton scandal and his bogus takedown of Wen Ho Lee based on the his source, a racist piece of Freeper shit Notra Trulock.
The NYT may have published the Pentagon Papers back in the day, but, as noted above, they said nothing while a deserting coward launched a war of aggression against Iraq for no reason other than Dick Cheney’s cronies needed to profit from it.
bkny
@The Moar You Know: the original article had withering comments (many about that half-assed piece) about the abuse; and it was interesting that the rewritten article appearing later had no ability to comment.
numbskull
@The Moar You Know: You make an excellent point, but the wars were ongoing and they are extremely complicated on many levels. The treatment of a single prisoner, arrested on your watch, ain’t. I’m not saying that there aren’t political ramifications for whatever he does with Manning, but what situation is this not true for, for any President?
Dennis SGMM
@Studly Pantload:
Without peer? Damn! No wonder I can’t tie up my rowboat.
numbskull
@Joey Maloney: OK, then you vote for option 2: he’s being an asshole asshole (AKA, a politician) at the expense of another’s life and at the expense of the Constitution. S.O.P. in the U.S.A.
Villago Delenda Est
@Loneoak:
Treason also has some pretty specific circumstances under which it can be brought up as a charge…because the Founders were wary of the grand old English tradition of screaming “treason” at the drop of a hat.
stuckinred
Yea, I think the president needs to personally investigate every charge of prisoner mistreatment in the entire fucking world.
numbskull
@john b: I agree that the timing is worth discussing. I think you have an interesting read on this – could you expound a little more?
sukabi
@Loneoak: that and that he’s not been actually proven to have done anything yet… which is the purpose of the trial… the only “evidence” that’s been presented is selected bits of info the gov. has given to the press.
what’s amazing is that the “press” hasn’t once inquired about how ONE low ranking person could gain access to such a wide variety of sensitive material and merrily walk out of a secure facility with it…
and that’s the real story
cleek
@Loneoak:
he is being charged with, among other things, “aiding the enemy”. and that is a capital offense. but, the Army has decided not to recommend the death penalty.
“aiding the enemy” might not be the exact same charge as treason, but it’s going to be close enough for most people.
srv
I was at a hotel last week, and one of the Fox blowhards, older guy with a big white hairdo (Napolatino?) was interviewing someone about Manning, and they were both ranting about his mistreatment.
There’s obviously someone in the command structure who doesn’t give a ratfuck, and knows Obama can’t or won’t do anything about. Not quite the same as tacit wink from Dick and Rummy and “taking the gloves off.”
cleek
@sukabi:
not really. he had a “top secret” clearance, access to the email servers used by diplomats, and his job was to make sure that diplomats and intel agents could get access to all the info they needed. he had access to it all because his job required him to.
Joey Maloney
@numbskull: No, not exactly. Your aggressively scatological formulation assumes that Obama thinks Manning’s treatment is wrong but he’s acquiescing in it because he finds it politically convenient.
I think it’s just as likely that he approves of the situation. Or that he disapproves of it, but thinks that restraint in the exercise of executive power is a more important value to uphold.
None of us can know what’s in the man’s mind or heart. All we can do is agree or disagree with his actions.
Dennis SGMM
Ah, yes, the NYT. That would be the same two-fisted pack of newshounds who sat on the NSA Warrantless Wiretap story until after the 2004 election because “it might have affected the outcome.”
Fuck ’em with a full-sized roll of newsprint.
Svensker
The NYT doesn’t hate America. The NYT is being dragged around by the nose by Jane Hamsher! Also, too, they have not visited the prisoner. Which is conclusive proof that everything is fine and also GG lives in Brazil, therefore he sux and lies. (Did I leave anything out?)
Zifnab
After reading shit like that, you really have to wonder who the hell is behind the wheel at the White House. How am I supposed to take Obama seriously when he comes off as completely helpless and clueless on Manning’s detention situation.
Playing the, “I’m just the President – what do I know?” card isn’t going to fly.
Loneoak
@cleek:
In the AGE OF TERROR we have really defined down “aiding the enemy” to a ridiculous degree. Remember that giving humanitarian aid, counseling on nonviolent conflict resolution, or supporting democratic process reforms counts as “material support” to terrorists. You may disagree here, but I think leaking diplomatic cables for the whole world to see is an entirely different ball game than, say, selling nuclear secrets to the KGB. Furthermore, to “aid the enemy” they kind of need to benefit from it and there’s no evidence that they have benefited. Quite the opposite if you give Wikileaks any credit for helping to spark the Tunisian revolution. There’s also no evidence that Manning actually supports any of our enemies. There might be some evidence that he thinks our foreign policy is fucked. But that is a poor standard for aiding the enemy.
dslak
@Svensker: Yes, you left out that Manning looked “fine” to his father, thus making the issue moot (even his father’s admission that his son was being mistreated).
Greenwald living in Brazil is the most damning counterargument of all, however. You really don’t need to mention anything else.
Villago Delenda Est
@sukabi:
As cleek points out, rank means nothing in reference to access to classified information. There were plenty of classified things I could never take a look at (no “need to know”) even thought I had a TS clearance. I could not just pull rank and walk into a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility) and start leafing through the files for jollies. However, there were plenty of low grade enlisted whose job it was to operate the SCIF who looked at that stuff and had access to it as a matter of course.
Villago Delenda Est
@Loneoak:
Heck, “aiding the enemy” came to mean daring to question the deciderer-in-chief’s dubious reasoning for launching the first war of aggression by a major power since 1939.
stuckinred
@Svensker: Yea, Jane is having a fundraiser.
Roger Moore
@Alex S.:
No, it makes him a spy (i.e. guilty of espionage). To be a traitor (according to Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution) you must either wage war against the United States, adhere to its enemies, or give its enemies aid and comfort. Leaking documents to a web site clearly doesn’t constitute waging war or adhering to our enemies, so it only counts as treason if it rises to the level of giving aid and comfort. That seems like an impossible hurdle to clear, given that Wikileaks isn’t a declared enemy of the United States. There’s also the matter of requiring testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or a confession in open court. Maybe that’s why Manning hasn’t been charged with treason.
cat48
His father’s interview was not included I see. The truth hurts sometimes. Dad has visited 8 or 9x, has actually seen & heard Bradley Manning. Odd he thinks that ‘he looks good’ and ‘has no complaints.’ I’m sure bloggers are discrediting Manning’s father and ripping him a new one, even as I type. Lord knows only bloggers know the real truth! Countertop check will be included no doubt.
Kirk Spencer
@cleek: The problem with the “aiding the enemy” charge is that it’s going to be difficult to make stick.
He gave the information to Wikileaks. Wikileaks was not a declared enemy of the United States; neither self-declared nor declared as such by the US government. In fact, Wikileaks was (and still is) a registered news media site.
Now, should he be hammered for leaking? Yes, and there are plenty of charges that can be brought. But the ‘aiding the enemy’ charge (and others of that ilk) are questionable at best.
Villago Delenda Est
@Roger Moore:
Meh. The Constitution. As quaint as the Geneva Conventions!
Malron
People on the left are going to totally ignore the statements from Bradley Manning’s father on this subject, aren’t they?
dslak
@cat48: Oh, there it is.
dslak
People not on the left are going to totally ignore the statements from Bradley Manning’s father on this subject, aren’t they?
cat48
@Malron:
Doesn’t fit the narrative they were going for…..you know…..torturer in chief and all!
soonergrunt
@cat48: go back to yesterday and the day before here on this site and you’ll see the very thing you’re talking about.
dslak
It must be some kind of visual defect preventing cat48, Malron et al from reading the following portions of the Brian Manning interview on PBS:
MARTIN SMITH: You decided that you wanted to sit down and talk today because you want to complain publicly about the conditions of his imprisonment.
BRIAN MANNING, father of Pvt. Bradley Manning: Yes.
MARTIN SMITH: And those conditions are?
BRIAN MANNING: Well, he’s being — his clothing is being taken away from him, and he’s being humiliated by having to stand at attention in front of people, male or female that I — as far as I know, you know, that are fully clothed.
. . .
I mean, this is someone that has not been — you know, gone to trial or been convicted of anything. And that’s prompted me to — you know, to come out and go forward. I mean, they worry about people down in — you know, in a base in Cuba, but here they are, have someone in, you know, on our own soil and under their own control, and they’re treating him this way.
I mean, it’s — you know, I just can’t believe — you just can’t believe it. I mean, it’s shocking enough that I would come out of, you know, our silence, as a family, and say, you know, now then this — you know, you have crossed the line. This is wrong.
cleek
@dslak:
yes. and they’ve been doing it for many days now.
hilts
@The Political Nihilist Formerly Known as Kryptik:
The Times will be hidden behind a paywall within the next month or two.
@Dennis SGMM:
The NY Times fucked up big time regarding the NSA wiretap story, but they deserve credit for this editorial.
Any past crimes the NY Times has committed does not change the fact that Obama has his head stuck up his ass regarding the treatment of Bradley Manning.
dslak
@cleek: I just think if you’re going to argue that Manning is not being mistreated or tortured, you could do better than to cite an interview with his father where he quite plainly says that his son is being mistreated. But I’m guessing that the people doing that haven’t actually read any of the interview except for the bit where his dad says he “looks good.”
Jay B.
To sum up the apologists: Obama can’t possibly keep track of this one guy who is being singled out by the military because Manning totally deserves it anyway, in addition to the fact that Greenwald lives in Brazil.
Also, what Bradley Manning’s dad actually said, in addition to saying that he looks ok:
Read more: http://www.bradleymanning.org/16337/mannings-father-to-pbs-frontline/#ixzz1GgoyChUl
Really, is there nothing the apologists won’t swallow whole?
dslak
@Jay B.: We could always perform some tests, to find out!
ruemara
@Jay B.:
you forgot this part:
BRIAN MANNING: I read it in the statement that was put out by his civilian attorney.
This was not his statement about the treatment based on what he saw, or what his son has said to him. This was based on Coombs’ report. I’m not saying I agree with what has happened so far, nor do I know what the specifics are of his treatment, but you should at least try to cite the whole source.
cleek
@dslak:
and the next two lines in that interview are:
MARTIN SMITH: Who tells you that?
BRIAN MANNING: I read it in the statement that was put out by his civilian attorney.
don’t know about you all, but i don’t take the public statements of attorneys as 100% accurate and in no way biased so as to help their client. lawyers spin. it helps their clients.
in other words: i don’t think we actually know the full truth of what’s going on with Manning’s detention. and i’m not so interested in attacking Obama that i’d eagerly ally myself with someone who comes in at about 90% traitor, just based on the statements of his lawyer – especially when the guy’s own father says his son appears to be OK.
YMMV
Jay B.
@ruemara:
I did you fucking moron. It’s a goddamn link to a fucking interview, which features the fucking entire Frontline piece. The point the other apologists were making that Manning’s dad said he looks fine and he had no complaints. Obviously, he does have complaints. It’s right there. IN THE FUCKING EXCERPT I QUOTED.
The Pentagon doesn’t deny that they forced him to do that — they claim instead it was protocol for prisoners on a suicide watch. Jesus fucking Christ. Questions! They were raised!
Complete and utter apologists.
Mnemosyne
I think this kind of public pressure on Obama is a good thing no matter what the NYT’s motive was, but I would be a lot happier with this editorial if I didn’t know with absolute certainty that they never would have published it if the current president had an R after his name.
dslak
@cleek: So the words of Brian Manning are sacrosanct only when he’s not saying that he obtained the information from someone else? You would have a better case if Brian Manning then said that he thought his son’s lawyer was lying, or that he thinks his son isn’t being mistreated. Saying that his son “looks good” is not him saying that everything he said before was false.
dslak
We really shouldn’t attack Bush for engaging in authorizing torture or abuse of prisoners, when we don’t know the whole truth of what went on. For example, some of the detainees’ lawyers may have overstated their case. I’m just sick of all the Bush-bashing here.
Jay B.
New shorter apologists: You better believe I’ll take the word of the Pentagon, when have they ever lied to anyone?
cleek
@dslak:
what reason would he have to say his son is OK, if his son is not OK ?
ruemara
@Jay B.:
Fuck you you fucking fucktarded jackass. Is that the only think you know how to do, curse people out? And how am I an apologist for being skeptical because I don’t think I know the whole story. Idiot. No wonder leftists lose. The first thing you do is heap abuse on me, berate me for not reading the linked interview-ignore that I must have if I’m pulling out a portion of the interview-and scream that I’m an apologist. How about I am skeptical in an era where every institution seems to not know how to be truthful when there’s an agenda behind it. Moron.
cat48
@dslak:
I’m not ignoring that part. The Frontline page has the statement from the military, too, explaining how Manning ended up nude…the elastic in the shorts…..it says he chose to stand at attention ONE day….he was given a night garment to wear after the lst nite……
Due to the sources involved, which have distorted in the past; they and the military are both suspect to me. They both have reasons to be dishonest. I don’t just take one source’s word for something when they’ve been wrong in the past about other things.
I expect Manning’s attorney to vigorously advocate for him and to even distort the truth. I don’t accept deliberate distortions from anyone else as fair.
As far as the Maximum Security he’s under, like I said a few weeks ago, if one single blogger acted like they cared about prisoner abuses in the past, like ADAM SERWER, I would take them more seriously. This is purely political for most involved. My test is last years Georgia Prison Strike. It was not written about and prisoner abuse was rampant. Not a peep from anyone, let alone the press.
I guess “I’m NOT Bradley Manning” like the rest of the blogosphere is. Very trendy.
Villago Delenda Est
@dslak:
The poor little rich deserting asshole. Everyone beats up on his incurious ass.
dslak
@cleek: How does him saying that his son “looks good” indicate that he doesn’t think he’s being mistreated? Is the argument supposed to go something like “no one who is abused or tortured can ever look okay to a visitor”?
Jay B.
@Mnemosyne:
Good Jesus that’s fucking stupid. Here
From the June 12, 2002 NYT Editorial on Padilla:
The government’s position is unacceptable. Our Constitution guarantees that those suspected of crimes must be informed of the charges against them, be able to confront their accusers, consult with a lawyer and have a speedy and open trial. But that means very little if the government can revoke all those rights merely by labeling someone a combatant. And as Mr. Muhajir’s case shows, the government is prepared to strip away the rights of American citizens as readily as those of foreigners.
That took all of .5 seconds. Should we find more? The Times sucks, but there are plenty of examples of them writing anti-Bush editorials. My God, you guys are really something.
Villago Delenda Est
Manning’s treatment is a psychological ploy to get him to “flip” on Assange, and it doesn’t matter if any accusation made is true or not.
That’s what it’s about. They’re using all the tools available to try to force that issue.
Manning is being punished for his intransigence on flipping on Assange.
dslak
@cat48: So your case then is that the entire lefty blogosphere was unconcerned about the treatment of prisoners of the War on Terror?
cleek
@dslak:
WTF. if you had even a slight hint your son was being tortured, you wouldn’t say “He looks good”, “He comes across to me as doing well”. you’d be screaming your fucking head off. at least i would.
i think it goes more like this: unless Manning is now so brainwashed (cue ominous music!) that he can’t even signal the slightest distress to his father, over the course of nine visits, then there’s probably not much going on.
soonergrunt
@Mnemosyne: This.
dslak
The man said that he thinks his son is being mistreated. Why should whether he meets our expected emotional reaction to that fact mitigate whether we take him at his word?
There’s no need to appeal to brainwashing to explain it. Brian Manning indicates in the interview that the relationship with his son is fraught. Furthermore, he says that Bradley doesn’t even complain to him about being shackled, even though he is always shackled during his exercise periods. So that’s prima facie evidence that Bradley Manning does not complain to his father about his treatment at all.
That he does not mention his mistreatment to his father is not significant counter-evidence against Manning’s mistreatment.
Maude
@cleek:
You know what point keeps getting missed? Manning’s lawyer hasn’t said his client is innocent of the charges. He doesn’t mention the charges, but rather, had made his client a victim.
I don’t think this is a good idea in the long run. For Manning.
Ash Can
I agree that this whole situation stinks, and is definitely a black eye for the military, the administration, and Obama individually. Even if it’s standard procedure to treat soldiers held in military prisons like this, it still stinks. But I seem to recall reading some comment about Manning’s own lawyer delaying Manning’s trial date by requesting a special hearing (a sanity hearing, IIRC). That strikes me as just as bad — I’d like to see Manning go to trial yesterday if not sooner, and I don’t see how delaying the process does nothing but compound the problem. Yes, the abuse should stop, but in lieu of everyone from Obama on down to the jailers at Quantico having a come-to-Jesus moment and suddenly saying “let’s stop doing this,” the sure-fire way to stop the shit is to get Manning to trial. IMO, the delay is as unconscionable as his treatment is.
cat48
@dslak:
Absolutely not, we had pictures of WOT prisoners, if not all the facts. Anyone should be outraged by those.
However, no one besides Adam Serwer has ever cared about or written about John Doe, sitting in Maximum Security daily and the conditions they’re held in. Their conditions are very similar to Mannings now. This is what the US does daily and no one calls it “torture” or cares. Serwer has a reputation for being fair and honest in his writing. He seems to really care about the subject so I take him seriously.
I still think Maximum Security is necessary for Manning b/c I can imagine not all soldiers are happy about what he did. He could very well need protection from the other prisoners. I don’t know all the facts like most people don’t.
cleek
@dslak:
based on what he read. which was written by a biased party.
true, but when the only evidence you have of “mistreatment” are hyperbolic statements by his attorney, counter-arguments don’t really need to be that strong.
shackles are mistreatment, too ?
cleek
@Maude:
exactly.
when you can’t fight the charges, fight the system.
Jay B.
@ruemara:
Self-refuting argument, how does it work?
You are a skeptic on the side of absolute authority over that of the individual. You have completely bought into the he said/she said dichotomy we Lefties so deride. The real reason we lose election is because we’re so gosh-darn confused about everything.
Sure, the Pentagon is a quasi-criminal organization who has lied about everything for the past 50 years, but on the other hand the guy’s lawyer is a lawyer. Who to believe? The government agency which illegally bombed Cambodia or a single individual being accused of a capital crime for whistleblowing by a near-monolithic state?
If this was Bush, I would guess you’d be straight up appalled by Manning’s treatment without the tap dancing. 90% of you “skeptics” would. But now, it’s different. Because. Of something.
Maude
@cleek:
I always look to see what the source is on a story. The source for WMD in Iraq before the war was Curveball. Need we say more?
My mom used to tell me don’t believe everything you read.
Jay B.
@cat48:
I keep seeing this, but it’s pure bullshit. Just because YOU don’t read it doesn’t mean people aren’t out there protesting the prison system. Even on blogs! Online!
Here’s a story from 2009 in an obscure little corner of the media world called The New Yorker. You might want to start there!
Here’s another one: A little start up scrapper called “Wired”
And here’s a good page for you to continue your studies. the National Radio Project.
sparky
@The Moar You Know:
um lolwhut?
At least Mr. Obama is not following Mr. Bush’s example of showy trials for the small fry — like Lynndie England of Abu Ghraib notoriety. But he has an obligation to pursue what is clear evidence of a government policy sanctioning the torture and abuse of prisoners — in violation of international law and the Constitution.
That investigation should start with the lawyers who wrote these sickening memos, including John Yoo, who now teaches law in California; Steven Bradbury, who was job-hunting when we last heard; and Mr. Bybee, who holds the lifetime seat on the federal appeals court that Mr. Bush rewarded him with.
NYT, 4/19/09
Alex S.
@Roger Moore:
I see. I agree, they probably didn’t charge him with treason because of the witness clause. But ‘adhering to the enemy’ is a question of definition. And you might call him a traitor for being a member of the US military and giving classified information to the international public (including the enemy), especially if his real intent was to sabotage the Afghanistan War. I was wrong though to use ‘traitor’ in the colloquial sense when legal terms are important.
dslak
@cleek:
So why not just make an argument about the (un)reliability of the source, rather than a strained argument about how a person can’t have been mistreated if they “look good” or don’t reveal being mistreated to a person with whom they have an admittedly fraught relationship?
I agree, but the statements by Manning’s father aren’t much in the way of counter-evidence, as he doesn’t dispute the accuracy of the claim that Manning is being mistreated. If Manning’s lawyer is misrepresenting the facts, then it seems that he’s deceived Brian Manning, as well.
It should be clear from the context that this wasn’t the point. Brian Manning is asked if Bradley complains about being shackled. Brian indicates that Bradley does not complain about it. We know that Manning is shackled during his limited exercise periods. So there is at least one thing done to Manning, shackling, about which he does not complain to his father. This would mean that it is not unreasonable to think that Manning does not discuss the negative aspects of his treatment with his father.
WyldPirate
But Cole–goddamit–It’s different when the Obama administration does rotten shit to its citizens. Why? Because He is President Immaculate Perfection! President Obama walks on water like our savior Jesus H Christ on a Piece of Toast(tm)!
The proper title of this post should be that “John Cole and the NY Times hate both America and President Obama”
cleek
@dslak:
which source? the lawyer or Manning’s father? i already said the lawyer’s bias is obvious and expected.
i don’t know if his father is reliable or not. i assume he is, since i have no reason to believe otherwise.
frankly, Brian Manning seems a bit confused. apparently he read this lawyer’s report and it gets him all excited when he thinks about it. but when he’s asked about the specifics of his son’s state, by a sympathetic interviewer, he seems to forget all of that. he is perfectly calm and maintains, even as the interviewer nudges him and gives him opportunity after opportunity to say otherwise, that his son is OK. if you think your son is being truly mistreated, you wouldn’t say he’s “OK”, over and over, because that minimizes how much mistreatment you can claim he’s suffering.
ok. if you think the father doesn’t know anything, that means your only source for this claim of “mistreatment” is the lawyer’s report. and we know that’s hyperbolic and misleading.
polyorchnid octopunch
@Loneoak: You’ve made a critical error is assumption; to wit, that the Tunisian dictatorship was an enemy. To the contrary, they were friends of the ship of US state. If the enemy of my friend is my enemy, the Tunisian people were the enemies, and the leaks helped them out an awful lot.
dslak
So you can’t claim that someone is being mistreated unless you are engaging in hyperbole, or at least someone who is or has been mistreated can never “look okay”?
If those were in fact the only two options, I don’t see how his lawyer could be criticized for choosing option one if Manning is actually being mistreated.
soonergrunt
@cleek: and yet, Jane Hamsher and Manning’s friend she goes with are just certain he’s being tortured, as is Greenwald, who can determine torture from Brazil, presumably using the same technology with which Bill Frist diagnosed Terri Schiavo as being asleep.
liberal
@Jay B.:
Heh.
cleek
@dslak:
?
you can claim whatever you like. but if it turns out you are exaggerating, then your credibility is diminished.
and if you are being mistreated and you can’t even convince your father of it, then you’re probably not being mistreated. maybe it sucks being in jail. but yeah, jail sucks. don’t joke about killing yourself, either. it just complicates things.
but look, bottom line, it’s not that complicated: i don’t find his lawyer credible on this. he’s obviously trying to get his client off the hook by exaggerating claims of mistreatment at the hands of his accusers. fine, that’s his job. but i’m not going to defend what appears to be a traitor based on what looks like a typical lawyer smoke screen. if some new evidence comes up, i’ll reconsider.
dslak
During the witch hysteria in late Medieval Europe, the English crown considered itself to be civilized because they only allowed punishments which did not result in direct bodily harm to the person, such as sleep deprivation. If you were to visit a person supposedly being subject to sleep deprivation (but not being subject to it at the moment), they would probably “look good.”
Ergo, a person being subjected to sleep deprivation could not have been mistreated.
joe from Lowell
This editorial appears to be based on already-debunked information.
No, he is not.
dslak
That is, if you were trying to convince your father that you are being mistreated. If you aren’t trying to convince your father, but he still believes you’re being mistreated, just remember that Glenn Greenwald lives in Brazil.
Indeed it does. But violating official procedures to punish someone for being a jackass doesn’t look so great, either. At least in the first instance, the person isn’t acting as an agent of the state.
It’s not unreasonable to think that Manning’s lawyer is overstating his client’s mistreatment, but it’s not obvious that he is doing so. In fact, that begs the question as to whether Manning is being mistreated.
dslak
@joe from Lowell:
The Hamsher brigade strikes again!
Oh, but wait:
Damn you, Scott Beauchamp! Now even the Marines are firebaggers!
cleek
@dslak:
ok, i give up. why would he not? is he trying to hide it? if so, why?
come on, let’s hear the full conspiracy.
dslak
@cleek: What’s conspiratorial about acknowledging the facts?
If he is being mistreated, it seems that he must be trying to hide it from his father. I could only speculate as to why, and my speculations would be quite irrelevant to the matter of the actual abuse taking place. All I know is that he has not told his father that he is being mistreated, and that he “looks good” when his father visits him.
Despite this, his father still believes that his son is being mistreated. Why is it so absurd if people other than his father believe so, too?
joe from Lowell
@dslak:
That story is from ten days ago, and leaves out that he has been issued some prison garb to sleep in. Yet another quarter-truth, like “Manning isn’t allowed to watch TV during his hour outside the cell.”
So, no, he is not ordered to stand at attention naked “every day.” In fact, he was never ordered to do so even once. He was ordered to stand at attention in his underwear, came out naked, and now stands for inspection wearing something else.
This has all been reported, and took about five seconds of googling to find. Forced nakedness would, indeed, be a serious violation of a prisoner’s rights. Good thing we know that that is not happening.
joe from Lowell
@dslak: Oh, and speaking of the Hamsher Brigade, now they’re saying, “OK, so he hasn’t been ordered to stand at attention naked, but the thing he wears is ugly.”
Yup. It’s ugly.
joe from Lowell
@dslak: And now, the “Hamsher Brigade,” as you call them, has changed the party line to “OK, Manning isn’t being ordered to stand at attention naked. At all. The military is right, he’s been assigned some prison sleeping thingie to wear during morning inspection, but that thing is really ugly.
Well, they’re right. That thing is seriously ugly.
joe from Lowell
What happened to my last comment?
Oi, me bum!
joe from Lowell
Yup, never fails. Oi! Me Bum!
cleek
@dslak:
everything you and his father (sometimes) believe about this is based on the lawyer’s report, which we know is exaggerated – as joe from Lowell is patiently documenting here for us.
dslak
@joe from Lowell: Yes, but it’s hardly debunked information if it came from the Marines holding Manning, and they have not told anyone differently. It may be false, but the claims of its falsity probably aren’t coming from someone that would be more reliable according to the NYT’s standards than the people in charge of the brig.
Fortunately, it seems that Manning was recently given a smock to wear while he sleeps (though it’s not clear how recently), but my understanding is that, until his dad sees him wearing the smock, only a deluded firebagger would believe that to be true.
soonergrunt
@joe from Lowell: Well, the government said that in reply to a request for information from The News Hour:
KWAME HOLMAN: Today, the NewsHour asked the military for a response to Brian Manning’s assertions.
…
A statement from the Department of Defense said in part: “The circumstances of PFC Manning’s pretrial confinement are regularly reviewed, and complies in all respects with U.S. law and Department of Defense regulations.
…
“In recent days, as the result of concerns for PFC Manning’s personal safety, his undergarments were taken from him during sleeping hours. He was not made to stand naked for morning count, but on one day, he chose to do so. There were no female personnel present at the time. PFC Manning has since been issued a garment to sleep in at night. He is clothed in a standard jumpsuit during the day. None of the conditions under which PFC Manning is held are punitive in nature.”
…
In his interview with “Frontline,” Brian Manning says he saw no signs of suicidal intentions in his son.
The military could be lying of course. But maybe they aren’t. Either way, it has absolutely no bearing on Manning’s guilt or innocence.
dslak
So were they lying when they told the NYT that Manning would have to stand at attention naked, or when they told News Hour that he did not?
Glenn Greenwald thinks the first, and he lives in Brazil, so I guess we know the answer.
Corner Stone
@dslak: In Manning’s rebuttal he claims he was forced to stand at attention naked.
Military says he chose to, Manning says he was forced to.
Of course, after the admitted forced nudity (admitted by the military), the standing at attention part is secondary, at least IMO.
dslak
@Corner Stone: I agree, but there’s little room here for saying that the claim that Manning was forced to stand at attention naked was debunked, or that only a deranged firebagger could think that it was so.
The firebaggers are guilty of interpreting every ambiguity as reflective of a systematic, top-down effort to deny Manning his basic rights. The anti-firebaggers are taking the position that every ambiguity is just the firebaggers being deranged.
But the fact that firebaggers have problems dealing with ambiguity doesn’t mean that the ambiguities aren’t there, nor that they don’t point to some serious problems with how Manning is being treated.
soonergrunt
@dslak: Whatever Greenwald thinks is immaterial to the question of when and where the Marines might have lied about Bradley Manning’s nakedness.
The two factors are independent.
I’ve seen enough of Greenwald’s blather (or I should say blather that was attributed to him by believers) that turned out to be wrong to not believe that he’s got an infallible line to the truth.
I’ve also been in and around the military long enough to know that the human beings who are part of that institution do not always make the best choices or tell the truth entirely about the choices they’ve made.
Glen Greenwald may be right, simply by dumb luck. Stopped clocks, etc.
dslak
@soonergrunt: Yes, and Greenwald’s place of residence is immaterial to the accuracy of what he says. Some here seem to have trouble recognizing that fact.
Corner Stone
Why does The Guardian hate America?
Bradley Manning: Cruel and unusual
“It would send a dire message to other tyrannies if the US itself responds to a leak as if it were itself a tyranny. It was, after all, the US top brass who failed to look after their data. We have not seen any heads roll there yet.”
cleek
@dslak:
are there many anti-firebaggers around ?
soonergrunt
@dslak: or lack thereof.
joe from Lowell
@dslak:
Dude, give it up. Even “Emtywheel” at Firedoglake is walking this one back.
Debunked. Falsified. Refuted. Demonstrated not to be the case. Call it whatever you want, but this charge goes in the same drawer as “Manning isn’t allowed to watch TV,” “Manning isn’t being given a blanket,” “Manning isn’t allowed to watch the news,” and “Manning is cut off from contact with the outside world.”
The charge is false.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. It looks like you’re throwing a tantrum because, yet again, you’ve been had.
dslak
@cleek: It’s a rather imprecise term, as I have no truck with firebaggers myself. Insofar as it refers to those who think the a position is refuted by pointing out that Jane Hamsher holds it, or that Glenn Greenwald lives in Brazil, then yes, there’s a few of them around.
joe from Lowell
@soonergrunt:
Here’s the charge I was rebutting, from the NYT editorial:
That is a falsehood. He was not required to stand outside his cell, naked, even once.
And every morning he is required to stand outside his cell, naked, until he passes inspection and is given his clothes back.
soonergrunt
@joe from Lowell: I understand that. I wasn’t arguing that point. I was providing the context for your assertion that the military disputed the claim that Manning has to stand naked in front of his cell every morning.
Villago Delenda Est
@soonergrunt:
None of the treatment of Manning has anything to do with that. It’s all part of the pressure to get him to bring Assange into this.
He’s a pawn in this game to get this guy who has pissed off so many at the top by causing them look like the asshats they are.
dslak
@joe from Lowell:
It’s a good thing that I’m not defending the truth of the claim, then, but rather the reasonableness of someone believing it to be true, given the source. I wouldn’t suggest taking the position that our views about the truth of a claim should be based upon what someone at FDL thinks, but that’s your prerogative.
So you don’t know what I mean, but you know that I’m throwing a tantrum, and why? Surely you’re not just insulting me for disagreeing with you.
Anyway, it was a joke taking as a premise that the only things we can believe about Manning’s treatment are what his dad tells us. Unless, of course, what someone else says about the situation already conforms to what we think is the case.
joe from Lowell
@dslak:
I notice that the NYT piece doesn’t include a quote. The two statements make sense together if the first statement included a statement that Manning had to stand during inspection without his clothes (meaning, wearing a smock) and only then had his clothes returned, and the NYT reporter, not unreasonably, interpreted “without his clothes” to mean “naked.”
Glenn Greenwald thinks a lot of things (or leads his readers to believe he thinks them). He thought that Manning wasn’t allowed to watch TV (or led his readers to think he did). He thought Manning wasn’t being given a blanket or pillow (or led his readers to think he did).
I don’t care about Greenwald living in Brazil, so much as his record repeatedly being caught presenting – willfully or not – false information.
Jay B.
@joe from Lowell:
Says…The Pentagon?
soonergrunt
@Villago Delenda Est:
And other than your simply wishing this to be true, what evidence do you have to support your assertion of conspiracy?
joe from Lowell
@dslak:
Ahem. The statement that has been debunked is, quote:
That statement has been debunked. Absolutely, 100%, wholly shown to be false. Bradley Manning is not required every morning to stand outside his cell naked.
Who are you talking to? The entirety of my statement about the debunked claim:
It’s entirely possible for a charge that is later debunked to appear plausible; I’ve never claimed otherwise. In fact, I found the charge troubling when it was made, and I’m hardly a firebagger.
dslak
The charge, if made at the moment, that Manning is now required to stand at attention naked, would be false. Whether there was an initial policy of making him do so, or whether he was ever forced to do so at some point, remains unclear.
That doesn’t mean that prior claims about it are debunked.
Jay B.
@soonergrunt:
Blather! Greenwald: Not infallible! Motive? Probably hatred of our freedoms.
Not always the best choices! Don’t always tell the truth entirely! Human frailty. Motive? Gosh darnit, who knows?
You guys are walking, talking parodies.
joe from Lowell
@dslak:
You seem a bit confused.
The link I provided was to Emptywheel, not Hamsher, and rather than showing that she “holds” the belief that Manning is being required to stand naked, it shows that she is now denying that Manning is being forced to stand naked. While pushing another line of argument that it doesn’t really matter that Manning isn’t being required to stand naked.
In court, they call this a “statement against interest,” and such statements are given sufficient credibility that they are one of the few exemptions to the rule against hearsay evidence.
Svensker
@joe from Lowell:
Not exactly.
@Corner Stone:
They’re being dragged around by the nose by Jane Hamsher, too. Duh. Also, no one told them Glenn Greenwald’s articles are too long and he lives in Brazil.
soonergrunt
@Jay B.: Pardon me, but where do I return the straw?
Keith G
To me it seems quite likely that initially some of Manning’s jailors took the extra effort to send Manning a special message. Now, it is equally likely that Manning’s treatment has been dialed down to the harshest that can survive strict scrutiny.
dslak
@joe from Lowell: Yes, but I’ve never claimed that Manning is forced to sleep naked at the present time. What I’ve said is that it’s reasonable to believe that Manning was forced to sleep and stand at attention naked, and that it is still reasonable to believe that this took place. This holds even if Manning is not currently being forced to do so.
Villago Delenda Est
@Keith G:
This sounds pretty reasonable to me.
The apologists for authoritarian assholes around here sicken me.
Jay B.
@soonergrunt:
You attribute Greenwald the worst of faith in everything you post. But the unbelievably passive voice you attribute to the actions of people in the armed forces — instead of calling them lying scumbags interested in mainly covering their asses — to simple humanity. It’s fucking hilarious.
Sticking up for the individual who is facing the enmity of entire U.S. Government, including the Executive Branch, is widely seen as dubious — yes, yes, Manning should receive a fair trial, and then spend the rest of his life in prison. But you never once attribute simple “human” failings to whatever it is you think Greenwald failed at, or lied about. That’s not OK around here. NO, he must have lied about things, or slanted them in a way to make Manning a martyr, because…what, he’s fundamentally dishonest? Why do you think Greenwald gives a shit about this case? Many here think it’s because he’s got a hard on to criticize the Obama administration.
Yet, in the same post, you give the military apparatchiks the benefit of the doubt, that they lie BECAUSE of their inherent humanity. And, sigh, while that’s regrettable, such is the way of things.
It’s a ridiculous double standard. I know people can make honest mistakes. I know people lie. It’s infinitely easy to tell the difference when you think about the motives. It’s laughable that you attribute bad faith to the guy with ZERO institutional support but attribute something entirely different for those who CONTROL it.
joe from Lowell
@soonergrunt: Ah. Capice.
@dslak:
Is there some special reason you decided to “defend” that reasonableness to me? Since I was only discussing the truth of the claim, and you responded to me, you’ll have to forgive me for thinking your comment was on point.
Yes, tantrums are almost always nonsensical, recognizable, and have an easily-traceable cause.
joe from Lowell
@Jay B.:
Did you read the link I provided? Give. It. Up. Even the people who pushed this story are backing off of it, and coming up with an excuse for why it doesn’t matter that their facts were wrong, because they’re still right, dammit.
joe from Lowell
@dslak:
This is growing tedious.
OK, I’ll quote the debunked claim AGAIN:
As I’ve said – as I’ve only ever said – this claim has been debunked. If you wish to defend some other claim, one I have not written has been debunked, you go right ahead.
Please stop defending it to me, however, as if it has anything to do with my comment.
joe from Lowell
@Svensker:
Yes, exactly. Since you didn’t notice, you provided exactly the same link I did, the one that states that Manning is not being required to report naked, and wearing a totally ugly smock.
From someone who used to claim that he was required to stand naked, and now acknowledges that he is not, that is known as “walking it back.”
dslak
@joe from Lowell: Perhaps because more is needed to refute a claim than saying that it’s been debunked, especially when there are documented cases of people saying that it is the case?
This is rather minor quibbling, though. Saying that it has been debunked implies that there was nothing to it in the first place. The worst that can be said about the editorial in the NYT so far is that Manning is no longer forced to sleep and stand at attention naked.
Right, such as someone going off the handle at another person, merely for disagreeing with them. But that would be projecting, wouldn’t it?
soonergrunt
@Jay B.: Where did I ever attribute anything but error to Greenwald, you stupid bastard?
And leaving aside the fact that I’ve outright stated that sometimes people in the military don’t do the right thing and sometimes they even lie to cover it up, I don’t know where I’m supposed to take everything they said at face value.
Did your parents have any children who lived? Christ but you’re not only one of the dumbest motherfuckers around these parts, but one of the loudest.
OK. I get it now. I’m a vet, and so all you people who fancy yourselves to be some kind of Manichean anti-establishment super heroes standing up for the rights of the little guy need me, for some fucked up reason known only to you all, to agree with you that the military, the police, and probably the postal service since they wear uniforms too, are all eeeeevil authoritarians ™ bent on enslaving people, taking away their freedoms, and probably forcing them to tie their shoes left over right.
Once, just once, I’d like a troll who actually addresses what I’ve said. And while we’re on the subject of shitbrained egotistical fuckwits like yourself, perhaps you could ask someone with more than a hardon and six working braincells to explain to me why I seem to collect the members of the fraternal brotherhood of paste-eating morons.
edited for clarity.
Jay B.
@joe from Lowell:
Do you actually understand the meaning of “tense”? For example “is” and “was” refer to two separate meanings of time. One is the present. Something that is happening “now” (e.g. “Manning is being forced to stand naked” compared to “Manning was forced to stand naked”) For the former to be debunked is easy, because it is happening now and people have seemed to confirm that he is not being forced.
But you want to be very clever by ignoring the word (note the tense) “was”, which isn’t debunked. And hasn’t been.
This is what the Pentagon says:
Now, I wouldn’t believe this for any reason at all — but note the changes in tense. Why do you think playing this stupid game “I’m not saying ‘was’, I’m saying ‘is’?” strengthens your anti-Manning argument? It looks like you are playing stupid semantic games that depend on what the meaning of “is” is.
joe from Lowell
I suspect I’m a tad older than most of those writing about being “sickened” and finding things “fucking hilarious.” Why, I’m old enough to remember how Newt Gingrich used to operate during Bill Clinton’s presidency.
He’d make a charge, and it would be debunked within a few days. That’s ok, because by that time, he’d have another charge ready to go. That would also be debunked within a few days. Same thing for charge #3, then charge #4, then charge #5.
And then, after charge #5 was debunked, he’d turn around and say, “Oh, but will all of these charges, there’s a cloud over the presidency. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.”
Of course, the rational response was exactly the opposite: once it became clear what the pattern was, a rational person seeking to be objective would conclude that the pattern of charges made Newt less credible, not Bill. But, then, those people who were really, really committed to believing in Bill Clinton’s corruption didn’t see it that way at all.
Jay B.
.
No, I just think you are naturally a bootlicking asshole who didn’t need the military to reinforce that natural attraction to authority. I love the “i’m a vet” shtick though. Appeal to authority never gets fucking old. Who gives a shit?
joe from Lowell
@dslak:
It just keeps getting more tedious.
OK, I’ll quote it again:
There is not a single documented case of Manning being “required to sand outside his cell, naked.” Not one. There was a statement, immediately refuted, stated that his clothes would be confiscated and returned, not that he would be required to be naked while they were confiscated. And as we now know, he was not required to be naked, but issued a smock.
I’m sorry you took it that way. My point was the claim has been shown to be false, and was at the time the NYT editor wrote his piece.
dslak
It’s not clear how comparing skepticism regarding the Pentagon treatment of Manning is comparable to Gingrich’s personal crusade against Clinton, but it could be a tantrum reacting to the fact that “Manning is no longer forced to sleep and stand at attention naked” does not entail “Manning was never forced to sleep and stand at attention naked.” That is, he’s been had.
dslak
Except for the one instance where he was naked, but which the military claims he did so of his own volition. And maybe he did, but it’s not obvious that he did so.
I took it that way because that’s what the word ‘debunked’ means. If you don’t mean it that way, you should use another word.
Corner Stone
“his undergarments were taken from him during sleeping hours.”
…
“PFC Manning has since been issued a garment to sleep in at night.”
joe from Lowell
@Jay B.:
Indeed, I understand the word “tense.” Why, I understand it well enough to know that in the sentence I quoted from the NYT editorial:
the “tense” is “present tense.”
I also understand “tense” well enough that the present tense refers to both 1) one-time incidents (You ARE an ignoramus who is making himself look like a moron by lecturing me about tense while bungling it yourself in your comment) and 2) ongoing or regularly-occuring action (You ARE an ignoramus who makes himself look like a moron in his comments).
The claim in this statement, which is made in the present tense, and refers to ongoing or regularly occurring action, has been debunked.
Why am I doing this? I’m going this because I, unlike you, care about whether or not the charges made in this editorial, and in pieces written about this case in general, are true.
This one – the one made in the present tense – is not true. It has been debunked. You should care about that. But you don’t.
joe from Lowell
@dslak:
Not clear to you, that is.
I’m not surprised. You seem to expend a great deal of energy not understanding things.
For instance, you’re still baffled by my comment that this statement:
has been debunked through the demonstration that Manning is not, and never has been, required to stand outside his cell naked.
@dslak:
OK, I’ll quote the debunked falsehood AGAIN, and let you and Jay B. work through your confusion:
I’m done explaining this to you. If you want to play the “You can’t make me say it game” any more, you’re going to have to play solitaire.
HyperIon
@Loneoak sagely wrote:
Excellent comment.
joe from Lowell
@dslak:
So, in other words, there is not one DOCUMENTED case. There is a case which even you admit has not been documented. The word “except” comes from “exception,” a situation which is at odds with the general rule. For you to have properly used the word “except,” you would have to show a documented case, which you acknowledge doesn’t exist.
@dslak:
I explained my meaning quite clearly:
Once again, you are expending a great deal of effort not to understand things.
dslak
A demonstration that I’m sure will be forthcoming any day now.
Jay B.
@joe from Lowell:
You are being completely obtuse. I know what you are saying, you are being disingenuous to what “debunked” means. Let’s say it’s a fact it’s not happening now. Sure. It doesn’t stand to reason it NEVER happened. But you know that. You are trying to be clever in a way that doesn’t warrant it.
EDIT: Or, judging by your previous two posts, completely ignorant. Whatever. The only proof you’ve offered is the Pentagon’s word and the meaning of “is”. That really isn’t “debunked”. Believe whatever you want, really. I’m sure given the track record of our Department of Defense, you’ll be “proven” right. Just around the time they find the WMD in Iraq.
Will you EVER tire of being a sucker?
joe from Lowell
@Corner Stone:
OK, I’ll quote the debunked, falsified, wrong statement from the NYT editorial AGAIN:
Hey, look at that! It’s not a statement about whether he sleeps naked!
It’s also not a statement about whether he once showed up naked to inspection!
And it’s not in the past tense!
Hey, I’ve got a crazy idea: how about admitting I’m right, and the claim the NYT made – the actual claim I quoted, not some other, somewhat-related claim – has been shown to be false?
Naaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh!
dslak
The general rule in this case being “There’s no documented instance of Manning being forced to stand naked.” That’s right, I know how counter-examples work.
I think your etymology might be backwards, however, as it seems unlikely that the verb ‘except’ came from the combination of itself with the suffix making it a noun, then subtracting it again.
dslak
So you no longer claim that Manning has never been forced to sleep and stand at attention naked, but only that he is not forced to do so now?
Good on you!
joe from Lowell
@Jay B.:
No, I don’t think you do.
Here, I’ll give you another shot at it:
No, he’s not.
That’s it. I’m saying the NYT’s statement isn’t true.
Do you think the NYT’s statement – every morning he is required to stand outside his cell, naked – is true? If not, then that claim has been debunked.
HyperIon
@bkny observed:
i’ve been wondering for a while what determines if an article in the NYT gets comments. i often spend more time reading the comments (in reader recommendation order) than the original post. but i have never seen the phenomenon you have just noted. interesting, indeed.
Corner Stone
@joe from Lowell:
“he was not required to be naked”
joe from Lowell
@Jay B.:
The DoD told me Manning was allowed to watch television. The DoD told me he was allowed to watch news programming. The DoD told me he was given blankets. The DoD told me he was not required to report for inspection in the morning naked.
You believed the opposite in every single one of these matters, and you were wrong in every single instance.
So the question is, when will YOU stop being a sucker? Is there going to come a point where you notice that you keep gullibly accepting whatever charge is made in the Manning case? The sixth time you’re proven wrong? The seventh? The tenth?
I don’t think there will be. I think you’re as committed to your storyline as I am to following where the facts take me.
@dslak:
I have never once claimed that Manning has never been forced to sleep naked. You have a serious problem with reading comprehension.
I take back my suggestion that you and Jay B. put your heads together. That would be a bad idea.
As for being forced to stand at attention naked, I’m just going to quote the long-debunked NYT statement, so you can see what I’ve had to say about that:
No, he’s not.
joe from Lowell
@Corner Stone:
More feigned ignorance.
Yes, if you carefully edit my comment to take out the part that makes clear that it is a comment about Manninig having to stand naked during morning inspection, you can pretend that I claimed Manning was never required to be naked at any time in his entire life.
But, then, just doing such a thing says something quite unflattering about the person who would engage in such easily-demonstrated dishonesty.
joe from Lowell
OK, so are we done here?
Nobody seems to be able to defend the false, debunked claim:
So, instead, you’ve decided to argue a bunch of other things that have nothing to do with what I wrote.
OK, I guess we’re done here. So, did the NYT lie, or were they lied to? I think the latter, given the amount of misinformation being put forward about the case.
Jay B.
@joe from Lowell:
All but the last I never commented on, nor found them to be more objectionable than the 23 hours of solitary he enjoys, which to me is really the crux of the matter. You haven’t proven shit about the latter, which falls into the SOP of humiliating prisoners — I’m assuming you’ve heard about that. Last I saw of the DoD on that matter, they denied doing it, which, of course, was a lie.
It is indisputable that Manning is being held in extraordinary circumstances which may, or may not, include the usual humiliation the DoD already uses on people to “fight” our War on Terror, and already includes solitary confinement which the UN and others already consider “torture”. What am I supposed to be wrong about?
Corner Stone
@joe from Lowell: Since dishonesty is your standard M.O. here, I’ll just quote this from Steve:
From when you faked a quote as to a “standard” that never existed, then got called on it and did your best to parse, crawfish and generally obfuscate the rest of the thread.
Svensker
@joe from Lowell:
No, if you read the article, she says that he WAS required to be naked but that after that got publicized, they gave him a very uncomfortable smock to wear at night.
Emptywheel never said he had not been stripped. She said he was no longer stripped.
Don’t you see the difference?
Svensker
@joe from Lowell:
The Times writer is inaccurate. But his claim has not been “debunked”. Manning was apparently at one point required to be naked. He no longer is. Emptywheel says the reason he no longer is is because various people complained loudly enough.
Corner Stone
@Svensker:
No, joe does not see the difference. He’s repeatedly made the broad claim that Emptywheel is “walking back” a claim about Manning’s forced nudity. So now he will wiggle sideways to a new starting point and try arguing from there. Then he’ll claim he’s quite a bit older than anyone else discussing the matter and he remembers things Newt did 15 years ago.
dslak
As for “undocumented” incidents of Manning being forced to stand naked, there’s :
Is it possible this event never happened? Yes. Can it definitively be said that it never happened, based upon currently available evidence? No.
Glenn Greenwald lives in Brazil, etc.
Mnemosyne
@Jay B.:
Wow. Your persecution complex has really gotten out of control if you’re now upset that the honor of the New York Times has been impugned because I pointed out that — gasp! — they favor Republicans over Democrats, something they’ve demonstrated over and over again for the past 15 years.
I know it’s odd of me, but after Whitewater, Wen Ho Lee, Judy Miller, and multiple other examples, I don’t trust the New York Times. I realize that they’re saying something you desperately want to hear, but insisting that they consistently bashed Bush over the “war on terror” that they helped hype is ridiculous.
ETA: If your editorial board is publishing tsk-tsk editorials about the treatment of Jose Padilla while your news division is hyping him as the most scariest and dangerous terrorist since Obama bin Laden himself, then the opinion of that editorial board seems more like a CYA, doesn’t it?
soonergrunt
@Mnemosyne: Go back through this thread to see this goofy little fuck’s persecution complex in action.
Some nobody on the internet points out that Greenwald has been wrong before, and this little pissant just tees off.
The funny thing is that with post after post after post of variations on the theme of “Glenn Greenwald said…” he accuses me of “appeal to authority.”
He hasn’t done anything of note in his life, but he has defended Glenn Greenwald on the internet from somebody who said that GG had been wrong. He can now die fulfilled. Hopefully in about 30 minutes. In a fire.
Triassic Sands
I read the condemnations of Bradley Manning and I wonder, “Would they have been the same if Manning had been imprisoned for the same actions when Bush was president?”
soonergrunt
@Triassic Sands: I would’ve. I had no use for those who went AWOL when Bush was President, and I have no truck with former LTC Terry Lakin.
And I don’t buy the whole of Manning’s story about his supposed whistle blowing.
Right is right, and wrong is wrong. American Soldiers do not get to substitute their judgment for that of elected officials without being held accountable. Our system doesn’t work any other way. And that doesn’t mean, and you’ll never find anywhere I said anything like it does mean, that Manning or anybody else should be mistreated.
Lakin and Manning are opposite sides of the same coin.