Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Abuse is Okay. Condemning Abuse? Grounds for Termination
WH Forces P.J. Crowley to Resign for Condemning Abuse of Manning
On Friday, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley denounced the conditions of Bradley Manning's detention as "ridiculous, counterproductive and stupid," forcing President Obama to address those comments in a Press Conference and defend the treatment of Manning. Today, CNN reports, Crowley has "abruptly resigned" under "pressure from White House officials because of controversial comments he made last week about the Bradley Manning case." In other words, he was forced to "resign" -- i.e., fired.
So, in Barack Obama's administration, it's perfectly acceptable to abuse an American citizen in detention who has been convicted of nothing by consigning him to 23-hour-a-day solitary confinement, barring him from exercising in his cell, punitively imposing "suicide watch" restrictions on him against the recommendations of brig psychiatrists, and subjecting him to prolonged, forced nudity designed to humiliate and degrade. But speaking out against that abuse is a firing offense. Good to know. As Matt Yglesias just put it: "Sad statement about America that P.J. Crowley is the one being forced to resign over Bradley Manning." And as David Frum added: "Crowley firing: one more demonstration of my rule: Republican pols fear their base, Dem pols despise it."
Of course, it's also the case in Barack Obama's world that those who instituted a worldwide torture and illegal eavesdropping regime are entitled to full-scale presidential immunity, while powerless individuals who blow the whistle on high-level wrongdoing and illegality are subjected to the most aggressive campaign of prosecution and persecution the country has ever seen. So protecting those who are abusing Manning, while firing Crowley for condemning the abuse, is perfectly consistent with the President's sense of justice.
Also, remember how one frequent Democratic critique made of the Right generally and the Bush administration specifically was that they can't and won't tolerate dissent: everyone is required to march in lockstep? I wonder how that will be reconciled with this.
Read the entire article at Salon.com
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
47 Comments so far
Show AllObama got the Nobel Peace Prize and we should now give him a Nobel Freedom and Justice prize as well. He's doing a great job defending our democracy and protecting the poor and disenfranchised worldwide. what a man of great moral and ethical stature, a wonderful example and model for the coming generations!
And I may get the Nobel sarcasm prize!
Risingdawn,
For what it's worth, you have my vote!
I said it before, I'll say it again:
I certainly agree that scapegoating Crowley is reprehensible, and is yet another item to be added to the Everest of proof of the Obama maladministration's malevolent, scurrilous nature.
It's a shame that Crowley stepped on his prick so hard this once that he got professional gangrene and died untimely. Still, he's not worth a tear.
I'm sure he'll land on his feet-- surely some corporation, university, think-tank, and either the Huffington Post or FOX-Teevee will find a chair for him after he's spent enough "time with his family".
Except for this final "misstatement", Crowley made a career as an odious, fork-tongued institutional flack. His fate is arguably a case of "he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword".
Still, even though Crowley is an unsympathetic figure, Greenwald correctly highlights the significance and implications of Crowley getting a kinder, gentler dose of the "Ray McGovern" Treatment.
This shows how far we've devolved. Just one sentence that missteps from the fascist line, and you're out. After a lifetime of obeissance, Crowley let out one little remark that showed the least bit of sanity, and he's gone.
How true
Every time Pres. Obama is faced with one of these moral dilemmas, he is forced to consider the effect of his decision as it impacts on his re-election campaign - does any one doubt the uproar that the Republicans would raise if he endorsed every progressive issue?
Given the poisonous state of US politics, I for one, am prepared to hang in with him until after his re-election.
Ah, the moral dilemma of Barack "we don't torture" Obama.
http://www.prosebeforehos.com/video-of-the-day/04/21/we-dont-what/
for fun, ha ha!
'does any one doubt the uproar that the Republicans would raise if he endorsed every progressive issue?'
You must listen to Thom Hartmann--he says this all the time. Tragic. The answer is 'No, no doubts, but WHO CARES? You mean Obama--the consummate debater--wouldn't be able to defend himself against faulty rhetoric? Really?
Or is it perhaps Obama doesn't support progressive issues because he doesn't agree with them?
This lame excuses used by obama apologists make nothing better. They in fact are leading to the institutionalization of neoliberal policies. (When Obama does it, it's okay.) We are told--by both Obama and the republicans--there's a new paradigm we must accept: that things will never be the same; that there's no other way; that SS/Medicare/Medicaid are broken and must be sacrificed; that wages must be slashed and workers should be grateful to have a job; that regulation of any sort will only lead to more job loss.
Democratics should not be accepting this crap. It is as toxic when obama promotes it as when republicans do so!
Wisonsin is where we need to get our strength from, not the white house.
So do you intend to vote against him in 2012 and watch the Republicans in action again?
So you intend to vote for him in 2012 and watch him use Regressive (Republican/Democrat) policies at home and abroad again?
Voting now only changes the arrangement of the deck chairs as our Titanic heads straight for the iceberg.
PJ should wear his resignation as a badge of courage and dissent against any act of torture along with cruel and unusual punishment. Torture, along with cannibalism, is the ultimate depravity in my mind.
A lot depends on who wins the House and Senate as well as the presidency. When Obama seems to abide torture I am "outta here". The only thing that keeps me attached to the party is the evil that I feel comes from the Republicans, who seem to embrace cruelty and torture.
DK would bring lot of my values to the table (i think), but could he actually win? I wouldn't bet on it. You can't lead unless you win.
I wonder if Howard Dean would take a chance and challenge Obama in the primary?
Tim Kaine is dropping out as Chairman for the Dem party. Rachel Maddow is hard to ignore (she knows how to pummel) and would be an interesting replacement.
Just thinkin'......
Rachel Maddow would be good
Frankly, I don't know what I'm going to do. Since I live in NY, I can afford a protest vote. Though it's not likely, I'm still hoping that someone will come along who just might, just might, give O a run for his money (I'd take any one of those truly populist democratic senators in Wisconsin--who so eloquently talked about profound PHILOSOPHICAL disagreements they had with walker, along with the REAL consequences of his actions, and backed it all up with THEIR actions--in a heartbeat.)
What burns me so much about hartmann, et al., is that they've already conceded (I mean, like a year ago) that no one could/should challenge Obama. This talk makes people there's no viable candidate out there who can actually challenge the extraordinarily well connected and well managed Obama. According to hartmann, it's a done deal and we can do no better.
Bottom line is, we should not simply accept what O's doing because his opposition is so extreme. It's the extreme things HE does that counts.
For what it's worth, my feeling is that he has no choice but to bide his time and come 2013 he will clean up some of these messes. THE NATION CAN'T AFFORD ANOTHER REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT!!
Wake the f**k up. We already have one.
Seriously. When will people learn -- it doesn't matter who you vote for, the policies never change. Vote Democrat, get war, torture and corruption. Vote Republican, get war, torture and corruption. But oh no!! We can't afford another Republican!!
What the f**k difference does it make?
Unfortunately, what you just said assures me you are stricken with the disease...no more excuses for you.
No doubt a republican president would have an awful agenda. But at least millions would not be lulled into a false sense of security; they'd know what they were getting and direct their anger at the president's policies, accordingly (see Jr).
Now? Now we have people like you who, sadly for you, actually believe Obama is waiting for just the right moment to show his progressive values. 'He's playing chess while all others are playing checkers,' is that it?
We can no longer change things at the federal level..not when it costs hundreds of millions to get elected (O proudly says he'll be looking to raise 1 billion...wonder where that'll be coming from...)
I hate to say this, but even Noam Chomsky conceded (in a recent interview on Democracy Now!) that you must "hold your nose and vote for Obama in 2012."
I cannot.
NMLib If Obummer is the non-right choice, then why vote? They are all the same. So the only thing it is, is a vote for, on the Dem side, is not being shot at a protest.
maybe
It's hard to know what posters are sincere progressives genuinely disgusted with Obama and what posters are Republicans shills, both urging us not to vote (and hand the election over to Republicans).
Is Obama pandering to conservatives in order to get re-elected and then be able to make progressive changes in a second term when re-election is no longer an issue?
Do we trust Chomsky's judgment (hold your nose and vote for Obama) or the judgment of the anti-Obama posters (don't vote or vote third party)?
Are all Democrats honestly as terrible as all Republicans?
On the other hand, should we let the Republicans in by not voting so things will get so bad that the conservative middle class will wake up and reject Republicans? Or by doing so are we running the risk of going to full blown fascism where progressive/liberal opinions are punished by imprisonment and death?
It could come down to harm reduction. Anyway, I think that's what he's counting on
oh the dilemma!
who do I vote against?
which of the evils is the lesser?
I'd rather vote for what I want, and not get it, than vote for what I don't want, and get it.
Eugene Victor Debs
I'd rather move to Denmark where I hear most people are happy... but I can't afford it.
Opposing torture, defending basic human rights and enforcing the Constitution are not just "every progressive issue".
What is being done to Bradley Manning further debases the U.S. legal system, exposes the moral corruption endemic at the Pentagon and in Congress, and reveals Barak Obama as a weak and spineless self promoter. To get elected, he had a different speech for every group, "a pocket full of them", he once told me in passing.
Bradly Manning's torture is noted around the world by people tired of hearing the U.S. government, on behalf of its corporate partners, pontificate on Human Rights while denying them at home and violating them abroad. Should Pakistani officials consider similar treatment for Raymond Davis, the U.S. agent/terrorist they hold? Will President Obama and the Pentagon praise them for their high standards if they do?
If Bradley Manning's treatment meets "our" (count me out) standards, President Obama fails to mention that he has endorsed a standard associated with a cohort of national leaders like Pinochet, Papa Doc, Syngman Rhee ,Laurent Kabila...and (see list http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/dictators.html).
Bradley Manning is a hero if he is the person responsible for revealing the crimes that some members of the Pentagon and the U.S. government have been and are engaged. They would normalize their crimes if they can. Impunity is their end point. Its not so different than what the Nazis did as they assumed control in Germany.
That seems to be what he's counting on and considering the alternative (more nukes, more global warming, union busting, more war, etc.) he's probably not wrong
"Also, remember how one frequent Democratic critique made of the Right generally and the Bush administration specifically was that they can't and won't tolerate dissent: everyone is required to march in lockstep? I wonder how that will be reconciled with this."
I fail to see how the current situation makes the above referenced critique of the Right and the Bush administration any less true. It just happens to also be true of the Obama administration. Logically, it would also be true to say that the United States government will not tolerate dissent. At this point in 2011 at least, as we fight wars on the non-corporeal which are killing very real, often innocent people, it is true--as true as it is sickening.
Obama is a professional politician and said whatever it took to get into office. He does not work for the people anymore. He works for the same billionaires and war profiteers as Scott Walker. That agenda requires stripping all power from all people everywhere possible. War is a Racket. Soldiers lose their souls and lives all the time when they sign up. In war profiteering, secrets are more important to keep.
Link I found in one of the comments on Salon -- many excellent ones -- too many to read -- but this is good. Excerpts from a very extensive interview with Brian Manning. I will listen to more of it later, but the commenter on Salon asked for input after watching it as he found portions of it odd. I would agree, to an extent, but I also believe that these are excerpts out of a seven-hour interview -- which Frontline did not expect would be this long, maybe a couple of hours at most. I don't know what to expect from the show on Bradley Manning, but I'm glad I found out about it and will watch:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/wikileaks/bradley-manning/brian-manning/?utm_campaign=homepage&utm_medium=feeds&utm_source=feeds
Barack Obama is an embarrassment to his Phylum.
Trylon
Maybe we should all nominate Bradley Manning as a CNN Hero. Nominations are open right now.
History will not be kind to Obama for this defense of Manning's imprisonment and torture. People everywhere find this affair sicking. This is a turning point. History will not be kind.
if only Crowley had learned to lower his standards...
dup. del.
I want to see Dennis Kucinich run again and really lay into Obam-ination. I voted for Obama, and yes, I,too, had a belief that he'd show some spine and fight for people like me-and you. He's a wolf in Republican sheeps clothing. How can he side with allowing Manning to be tortured??!!! Nominate Obama for deceptive, lying disappointent of the decade
I love DK, but you've gotta admit that he was politically neutralized, or at least neutered, on Air Force One during the "health insurance reform" matter. I'm guessing DK is still grateful Obama allowed him to land with Air Force One.
Paul Wellstone wasn't so lucky (and yes, I know he wasn't on Air Force One).
Worth repeating, we do have another republican president.
#2 the species is not going to survive in a form recognizable today or at 1% of it's numbers.
Most progressives have become more and more disillusioned with Obama, and his brutal, torturous treatment of Bradley Manning is the last straw. Recall that Bradley was motivated to allegedly send the documents to Wikileaks because he was horrified that US forces, including his unit, were rounding up Iraqis and turning them over for the same sorts of torture employed by Saddam's security apparatus, and by a blatant attack on civilians by a US helicopter crew, and that US authorities have refused to take action even after massive publicity. Defense Secretary Gates has acknowledged that the leaks caused embarrassment, but posed no threat to national security nor to any individuals.
Both the Wiki documents and Obama's reactions to them reveal a petulant, narcissistic, arrogant tyrant who cares nothing for human rights or the rule of law. Clearly, our servile media, supine congress and comatose courts don't care and won't act, but the Raymond Davis fiasco provides a window through which justice might enter.
It has been reported in the Indian and Pakistani media that Davis's cellphones contained numbers of 27 high-level Taliban operatives, and that he was conspiring with them to carry out attacks inside Pakistan to provide a pretext for US action against Pakistan's nuclear program.
If true, this would explain Obama's and Clinton's frantic efforts to get Davis released and would almost certainly implicate them in numerous felonies related to terrorism and conspiracy.
Would anything come of it? I am quite sure it would, based on politics rather than principle. If Biden were also implicated, a Republican house would gleefully impeach both of them, and a Democratic senate would have no choice but to remove them after the world learned of their dark deeds. This would be the biggest scandal in US history. Boehner would certainly push the issue, because he would become president. Would he be worse than Obama? No, because both of them bow to the same masters. How could this help Bradley Manning and Julian Assange? Senate Democrats could extract a promise of pardons from Boehner in return for their votes for removal.
This isn't farfetched, and the information to date at least warrants a special counsel investigation. It would go a long way towards restoring the rule of law and attenuating our international pariah status. We've imprisoned and tortured people and started wars based on less reliable information, after all.
You think that Senate Democrats give a d*mn about Manning and Assange? The ones who don't want the two tortured and murdered, that is.
Of course they don't give a damn about anyone other than themselves, but they'll be distancing themselves from atrocities and US-sponsored terrorism, trying to regain an appearance of legitimacy. They might protect the messengers to distance themselves from the taint of obsequious association with such vile characters.
Sorry I missed Glenn Greenwald in Santa Fe. Here's a link to the speech on March 8th:
http://podcast.lannan.org/2011/03/13/glenn-greenwald-presentation-8-march-2011-video/
speak the truth...BANG you're dead
Obediant servant...I smell whistle blower if the man has any balls.
OBUMMER ENDORSES TORTURE. It's that simple. For the remaining handfull of Obamites it is clear as day. This will be remembered as the issue which defined the Obama White House and clarifys the ongoing collusion and promotion of Bush policies especially when it comes to matters like torture. And as far as the Pentagon is concerned they have been and still are in Bush mode which Obama has perpetuated to this day contrary to all the doubletalk. One thing though, keeping the Bradley Manning issue in the public spotlight, debate, and discourse is giving the Pentagon and the White House fits. Better stock up on Mylanta, White House.