Is there any reason we SHOULDN'T think Obama is persecuting Manning just to look "tough"?

[Ken Burch]

Bradley Manning isn't accused of a violent act. He hasn't harmed anyone.

If he were a millionaire, they'd let him stay at his home with an ankle bracelet on while waiting for the trial.

Why should we NOT think Manning is getting this treatment just to the prez can look "tough", "manly" and "resolute"?

[LoZoccolo]

1. I'm not saying you are, but if someone were asking if there were any reason they SHOULDN'T

think you are here to stir up animosity against Obama as part of a conservative plot, would you think that you would be obligated to prove a negative like that?

[Ken Burch]

4. I'm not a conservative. And unquestioningly defending the admin

isn't the ONLY alternative to the election of a conservative in 2012. We don't HAVE to look the other way at this kind of shit just because it's a "Democrat" doing it. If you'd condemn Bush for this, you HAVE to condemn this administration too.

[LoZoccolo]

6. Is there any reason I SHOULDN'T think that? n/t

[Ken Burch]

10. Well, yes...the fact that it isn't true.

Obama, in fact, would have nothing to lose from just releasing Manning. Nobody who hates Manning has any progressive views anyway. You can't BE a progressive and still defend the national security state as we know it. Secrecy in government is always right-wing.

[LoZoccolo]

12. I know you don't believe it, but is there any reason I SHOULDN'T? n/t

[Ken Burch]

15. The fact that it's delusional?

Why would you ever trust the national security state? They've never been on OUR side. All the secrets are about are getting people killed. Secrecy in government can never have humane intent.

[LoZoccolo]

17. So you have no reason to give that we SHOULDN'T believe that you are a right-wing disruptor? n/t

[Ken Burch]

22. You're line of argument has nothing in common with my OP

We don't HAVE to back Obama no matter what. It's not him or the abyss.

This isn't a country that won't tolerate anything better than him.

[LoZoccolo]

24. If Obama has to give a reason why you SHOULDN'T believe whatever you want about him

then why SHOULDN'T you?

[Ken Burch]

26. I DID give reasons, and compelling ones.

You simply chose not to accept them. That isn't the same as saying I gave NO reason.

Just admit Obama is wrong on this. You KNOW secrecy in government can never be progressive or lead to peace.

If you defend secrecy, you defend the war machine. It's that simple.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[Ken Burch]

36. There's also the fact that I've never supported conservative candidates

despise all of them, have campaigned against all of them, and don't want any of them elected.

What this comes down to is that, unlike you, I can't accept some people being sacrificed for what some cynical centrist hacks pretend is the "greater political good" or "three-dimensional chess" or whatever. The fact is, it didn't help any larger progressive goals earlier in the administration for Obama to sacrifice anyone that he has sacrificed. No gains were made as a result of anyone being thrown under the bus. None ever are.

[sabrina 1]

Then answer the question, why is Obama taking a rightwing

illegal position on the torture of Bradley Manning? His claim that he believes those responsible for the illegal treatment of Manning, is laughable. So, why is he, a Democrat, acting like George Bush now?

[MadMaddie]

37. Um....Wisconsin and other Red States are experiencing

the abyss....President Obama didn't make the Repugs do it the Koch brothers and other monies did.

I suppose you will be one of the ones that scream for a Primary and then if the Dems loose you will wail about what happened.

Again....November has left no lasting impact on some.....

Find someone that is better and get back with us....You could always get a Scott Walker type...this type has worked out so well..

[Ken Burch]

48. You fight against that by recruiting strong progressives and fighting like hell

to elect them, and then holding their feet to the fire AFTER electing them.

Barack Obama has proven he can't be part of any progressive victory in 2012. We don't have to settle for a cynical, detached centrist who's more comfortable in the suites than the streets. Democrats should NEVER be comfortable in the suites, since everyone in the suites is our enemy.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

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

[atreides1]

2. I don't believe he is

I believe that the President is following advice he's being provided with...and that he feels he has to take the word of his advisors, because he trusts them.

And Manning is being prosecuted, not persecuted by this administration...those who are guilty of persecution can be found here on DU, the hatred that they seem to have for Manning is almost as bad as what the birthers have for Obama!

[DURHAM D]

8. Could you post some examples of the "hatred"?

[Ken Burch]

9. The military shrink ruled a MONTH ago that Manning wasn't suicidal

That should have ended the extra stuff right then. Obama KNOWS what's being done to Manning is wrong. He knows Manning isn't even really a criminal, because revealing the secrets of the right-wing war machine can't be a crime.

[DURHAM D]

50. still waiting

[apples and oranges]

3. What the hell are you talking about?

Releasing classified documents is a crime. Looking "tough" doesn't have shit to do with it.

[Sky Masterson]

7. Thank you!

:applause:

[Ken Burch]

13. Revealing the secrets of the right-wing war machine isn't a crime

Government secrecy can never lead to progressive or humanist results. Secrecy is always just about getting us into wars or keeping us in them. It's never about helping the workers or the poor.

[cali]

19. yes, it's a crime. you may disagree with the law, but it is a crime. period.

[Ken Burch]

23. You're defending the right-wing war machine

You know secrecy in government is always right-wing. You know it can never serve humane goals. You know that secrecy always assists the cause of war against the cause of peace.

What part of "secrecy in government is our enemy" do you not get?

Nobody in the war machine is acting out of positive intent.

[BzaDem]

28. What part of "something can be a crime even if you wish it weren't" is difficult to understand,

in any way? This is not rocket science.

[Ken Burch]

30. It's not about what I wish, personally

It's about right and wrong in a universal sense.

And saying "the law is the law", if you'd said it in the 1850's, would mean you'd have to defend the Fugitive Slave Act and the Dred Scott decision.

[BzaDem]

Right and wrong in a universal sense? Really? Let's talk about right and wrong.

(This is of course irrelevant to your point, since a crime is a crime REGARDLESS of whether the law is just, but let's ignore that for the sake of argument.)

Let's say that during the resolution of the Cuban missile crisis, the secret diplomatic terms of the deal between the US and Russia were leaked to the public before the deal was agreed to and the missiles were removed. What would you put the odds at of us still being here today, if that were the case?

[Ken Burch]

38. OK

My point would be, if we'd just done what we were supposed to and normalized with Cuba once JFK came in, the damn missiles wouldn't even have been there. It's not as if JFK had no alternative but to greenlight the Bay of Pigs OR that the U.S. ever had the right to interfere in Cuba in the first place. Cuba should always have been the sole concern of the Cubans.

Besides, the "secret deal" was just the original Soviet proposal, which was the removal of their missiles in Cuba in exchange for the removal of our equally unjustified and destabilizing missiles in Turkey(missiles that were as close to Moscow as the Soviet missiles were to D.C.)

So your scenario isn't unavoidable OR as smugly straightforward as you think. It was NEVER the case that JFK had no alternative but to threaten to vaporize the damn planet.

[BzaDem]

42. I'm not arguing about whether JFK "had any alternative."

You are correct that the "secret deal" was a Soviet proposal (actually the second one).

That is my point exactly. If the conditions of that deal were released to the public, it would have been denied vigorously and we would have been at war 3 days later. So much for your "secrecy is never progressive" argument (unless you think it is progressive for humans not to exist).

[Ken Burch]

45. No, I'd have taken the Soviet deal publicly, and that would've been the end of it.

Also, we could then have just normalized relations with Cuba(remember, we never had any reason to isolate Cuba or try to put the rich back in power in that country...and putting the rich back in power was all "anticommunism" was ever about, you know).

[BzaDem]

47. Which is why those with similar views will never go anywhere near the White House.

But that isn't really my point now, is it.

In reality, secrecy allowed the deal to go forward. It doesn't matter what would have happened if there were some president other than JFK. JFK was president (not to mention a Congress that would sooner have declared war on Cuba than allow such a deal), and secrecy prevented a nuclear holocaust that otherwise would likely not have been prevented.

[Ken Burch]

49. It was JFK's fault the missiles were in Cuba in the first place

He KNEW we had no right to send in an invasion party to put the rich back in power in Cuba(which is all that putting "anticommunist" regimes in power in Latin America can ever mean).

If the Bay of Pigs hadn't happened, there'd have BEEN no freaking missile crisis. And there was never a good reason to even try overthrowing Castro(and, effectively, restoring the Batista era)

And it's really disturbing that you'd say that no one like "(me), and those with similar views" could ever reach the White House. Because that's the same thing as saying that no one with a lick of common sense could get there. We don't have to nominate unbending hawks just to take the presidency. Everything Scoop Jackson stood for on foreign policy was proved wrong in the end.

[BzaDem]

52. That is revisionist nonsense, but it is irrelevant revisionist nonsense, since we are talking about

secrecy. Not whose fault something was.

Secrecy is what allows diplomacy to work. Diplomacy is what allows conflicts to be resolved without war. Without secrecy, there is not functioning diplomacy. You claim that your attitude somehow has progressive results, when in reality, it would cause far more armed conflict than Republicans would ever hope for.

[Ken Burch]

56. No it's NOT revisionist claptrap

U.S. actions against Cuba were always completely unjustified. It wasn't a crime for Castro to seize the assets the American corporations had always just stolen from the Cuban people.

And we had no right to try to stop the Cuban Revolution or to put the Batista types back in power(which even YOU would have to agree would have been the only possible result of the Bay of Pigs invasion succeeding, since no progressive Cuban exiles were involved in it.)

[BzaDem]

57. Even if your view were accurate (and it isn't), that has NOHTING to do with the question of secrecy.

Secrecy allows diplomacy to resolve conflicts, and diplomacy allows conflict resolution without war. Including the Cuban missile crisis.

Just because secrecy might not be required in some alternate universe does not mean that secrecy is not required in THIS universe. The idea that the world would diplomatically resolve conflicts without secrecy is naive in the extreme.

[Ken Burch]

59. You spelled "nothing" wrong.

And how is my view inaccurate?

There was never any legitimate case for a U.S. invasion of Cuba and you know it. Not in 1898 OR in 1961. Cuba should always have been solely the concern of the Cubans.

[sabrina 1]

51. So you're saying that war crimes are no longer war crimes

because we have a Democrat in the WH?

How does that work? Manning reported war crimes. He was ignored, he was expected to participate in those crimes. He went to the chain of command, it didn't work, then he became a whistle-blower.

What SHOULD a person who witnesses abhorrent crimes of torture do when those who could stop them and are obligated to do so, don't do it.

So, what were his options, other than what he did?

[BzaDem]

54. Just because you claim something is a war crime does not actually mean it is a war crime.

Much of what Manning released were diplomatic cables that have nothing to do with war crimes (your opinion notwithstanding).

"So, what were his options, other than what he did?"

Not illegally release secret diplomatic cables to the public. That was easy.

[sabrina 1]

58. Whistle-blowing is legal. Ask Daniel Ellsberg.

This issue has already been dealt with regarding the public's right to know V the state's claim it has a right to keep secrets.

And we do NOT know that it was Manning who released Diplomatic cables. Do you have any proof of that? In fact, it is considered most unlikely that he did.

He most likely released the Iraq War Logs and the Afghanistan War logs which mose certainly DO prove that war crimes were taking place. Not to mention the video that the Pentagon had refused to give to Reuters in which two of their journalists were murdered along with several other civilians.

Has anyone investigated that crime yet?

What you are defending is that the person who exposes the crimes should be prosecuted, while the crimes themselves should be ignored. That is what the Bush gang claimed, and back them, we, democrats, vehemently disagreed. So, what changed your thinking, assuming you were among those who supported the exposure of war crimes under Bush?

Have you read any of the war logs btw? Most of them are from the Bush era. Odd that we now feel those crimes should have remained secret.

[Ken Burch]

64. Thanks for that.

In fact, it's entirely possible that the diplomatic cables were deliberately released by the administration just to give them something to vilify Manning and Assange with.

[Ken Burch]

55. It's the "It's OK when OUR guy does it" thing again.

Why does anyone still fall for that shit?

[cali]

39. No, I'm really not. I'm just pointing out that you were factually incorrect

when you stated that what Manning did isn't a crime. It manifestly is a crime under the law. Whether or not you or I or anyone else disagrees with that law doesn't change the fact that it is against the law. It's really not that tough to understand, dear. Do try. Oh and are you capable of talking without the use of stale bromides and platitudes? Just curious.

[Ken Burch]

40. OK...it's a crime against the "letter of the law"

So was helping slaves escape in the 1850's. Does it actually matter that the letter of the law was broken?

[cali]

41. oh for pity's sake. that's a truly pathetic comparison.

[Ken Burch]

44. In both cases, we're talking about the letter of the law.

What's the difference?

In both cases, the letter of the law was broken in the name of preventing suffering and injustice. Secrecy in government doesn't help people like us, cali. It's only the tool of those who want more wars. It can't be progressive.

[dogday]

66. Manning knew the risks and still took them. What does that

tell you? He felt this information was important enough that the public's right to know superseded the punishment he knew he would endure. He also stated that he could of sold this information for money but believed it belonged in the public sector.

I believe he is a hero, just like the guy who released the Abu Ghraib films and photos. Wrong is wrong is wrong, and I am sorry Pvt Manning will either lose his life or spend the rest of it incarcerated.

One rule I learned early in life, not every thing is black or white, there are areas of grey.

[BzaDem]

25. Actually, "revealing the secrets of the right-wing war machine" absolutely IS a crime, depending on

the classified status of the secret.

Believe it or not, there are indeed laws that you don't like. That doesn't make them any less valid. I know this might come as a shock to some.

"Government secrecy can never lead to progressive or humanist results"

Putting to one side the complete absurdity of that statement, where in the world do you get the idea that something isn't a crime if it "can never lead to progressive or humanist results?"

[Ken Burch]

29. That's the best definition of a crime that I can think of.

And it covers most of the things we think of as criminal anyway.

Bradley Manning should NOT be treated as if he's a serial killer. He has prevented death and suffering by doing what he's done.

All non-right wing people should be opponents of government secrecy. Remember, all secrecy leads to is things like Vietnam. It never leads to peace.

There's simply no reason to defend anything that doesn't serve to make the world more progressive or humane.

[BzaDem]

31. The ability to think of an absurd definition does not make an absurd definition correct.

A crime is a violation of the law, regardless of how thrilled you are about the law.

[Ken Burch]

33. So you'd have defended the Fugitive Slave Act in the 1850's?

And in the 1950's, you'd have turned in people just for being Communist Party members?

In the 1960's, you'd have defended the Chicago police for publicly beating people just for marching against the war?

And in the Eighties, you'd have called the I.N.S. about those refugees from the Salvadoran death squads that were being hidden in the church down the street?

[BzaDem]

35. I would have opposed the law -- not denied that it existed. Where do you get the idea that

acknowledging something is a crime is somehow defending the law that makes it a crime?

(I would defend the law that makes it a crime in the Manning case, but it is a crime REGARDLESS of my opinion of the law.)

[readmoreoften]

14. Yeah, fuck whistleblowers. Let's cover up murder. It's classified!

:eyes:

[muriel_volestrangler]

34. *per*secuting, not *pro*secuting

The OP suggests "let him stay at his home with an ankle bracelet on while waiting for the trial". This is about the inhumane treatment Manning is getting.

I do feel the Obama administration is actively persecuting him. The firing of Crowley is a very bad sign - Obama is on the side of those who want Manning to suffer before the trial, to frighten other potential leakers.

[fascisthunter]

67. tough shit

I'm glad he did what he did... he exposed the corruption and how little some in this country value transparency and true honor. I'll say, but I think those of you who have an issue with Manning are a bunch of cowards who can't stand the truth. You'd be better off living in a police state... come to think of it, that's exactly what you are defending.

[joeybee12]

5. I doubt Obama has control of this situation...just like he's not really in control of much...nt

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[Cleita]

16. If he wants to look tough, he can prosecute

George Bush and Dick Cheney for war crimes not a Pfc kid, whose crime is maybe poor judgement at the most.

[cali]

18. What Manning is accused of would be prosecuted by any administration

and he'd be held by any administration. What's at issue is his treatment.

[KurtNYC]

20. Simple: Because Obama is not interested in "looking tough" !

The major governments and powers of the world are addicted to secrecy. The treatment of Manning is perhaps done to intimidate other would-be whistle blowers. I don't think this kind of thing makes them look tough -- quite the opposite. They are scared. This is much bigger than Obama.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. "Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely." Lord Acton

Getting and retaining power demands that people be sacrificed. Manning is being sacrificed along with idea that we have a transparent government answerable to the people.

Ironically, the lengths the administration is going to to prevent embarrassment is now embarrassing and would be downright laughable if not for the victimization of Manning.

[Taverner]

27. It's called "Making an example of them"

[Better Believe It]

43. Yes there is. President Obama is against leaks that can expose what the government is doing.

[Modern_Matthew]

46. There's nothing he can do to look tough at this point. He takes everything and dishes nothing. nt

[Rex]

53. More than that, this goes beyond Obama imo.

This is the MIC telling the American people, 'yes we can torture, just watch us!' and the WH having their backs.

WE DO TORTURE. :(

[JoePhilly]

60. He's being "persecuted"?? I thought he was being "tortured".

Or, maybe he's been arrested and charged with numerous crimes.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

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

[Ken Burch]

63. Well yeah...the fact that the Humane Society doesn't have a contract out on me.

Also, my apartment walls are thin enough that the neighbors would complain about the sounds.

My post wasn't anything like that though. I was talking about politics and positioning. Nothing I said equated to vilification of the man on a human level.

[saras]

65. We could be torturing him just because we like to...

Even if it makes us look vicious, sociopathic, uncontrollable, stupid, and not tough or manly at all.

[grahamhgreen]

68. Oh yeah - he's is a tough guy! He's taking the heat away form Grandma Millie, too!

[ZombieHorde]

69. Yes. The lack of hard evidence is one reason. nt