The National Review has a piece up examining ten liberals and their reaction to the Bradley Manning treatment. A snippet:
Yesterday, P. J. Crowley was forced to an early resignation from his post as State Department spokesman. His blunder? At an event at MIT last Thursday, he said that “what is being done to Bradley Manning is ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid on the part of the Department of Defense,” and that Manning was being mistreated. President Obama and Hillary Clinton’s State Department evidently thought those comments went beyond the pale and eagerly accepted his resignation.
Afterwards, Obama publicly stated that he had “asked the Pentagon whether or not the procedures that have been taken in terms of [Manning’s] confinement are appropriate and are meeting our basic standards.” He concluded, “They assured me that they are” (click here for the Defense Department’s statement on Manning).
But liberal intellectuals and activists have gone much farther than Crowley. Here are ten perspectives on Bradley Manning, taken from mainstream liberal writers, activists, and publications:
1. By far the most outspoken, well-known, and influential defender is journalist Glenn Greenwald, who first came to prominence as a critic of George W. Bush’s national-security measures. Now, his Salon.com archive resembles a Google News feed for Bradley Manning. Greenwald is passionate on the subject. He has said that “Manning clearly believed that he was a whistle-blower acting with the noblest of motives, and probably was exactly that.” Manning is for him a “national hero,” whose treatments “constitute cruel and inhumane treatment and, by the standards of many nations, even torture,” which will “create long-term psychological injuries.”
It goes on from there, listing a bunch of other liberals and things they have said. My personal favorite, for obvious reasons, is #10:
10. Finally, there’s a notable (though not surprising) exception: The New Republic, though not endorsing the treatment of Bradley Manning or Crowley’s ouster, has devoted most of the ink it’s used on Manning to emphasizing the threat posed to national security, and America’s formerly covert friends overseas, by his alleged leaks.
This doesn’t include other, non-political groups that have sprung to Manning’s defense, like WikiLeaks and legal-defense funds. The above are the mainstream, influential liberal outlets that help refine the Left’s policy consensus. Many of the same were apoplectic about George W. Bush’s origination of the PATRIOT Act, the detention centers at Guantanamo Bay, and the prosecution of its residents by military tribunal. But Obama has extended W.’s policies on all three — and now he’s accepted the treatment of Bradley Manning, and ousted its critics, to their dismay.
Maybe the liberal intellectuals are right, or maybe President Obama is. But how in good conscience can they continue to support him?
I laughed out loud.
mclaren
I pledge allegiance to the waterboard, and the torture chamber for which it stands; one lynch mob, ungodly, with kidnapping and assassination for all.
Joe Beese
Yeah, now that Obama is torturing white people, it’s a Big Deal.
If he was smart, he’d stick to torturing brown ones. His supporters don’t give a shit about that.
4tehlulz
@Joe Beese: Cool story, bro.
gnomedad
Yeah, liberals should get behind a Republican who’s really into torture.
The right’s devotion to the moral integrity of liberals is inspiring.
Stefan
Even the liberal New Republic?
Bulworth
Even the liberal New Republic….
Shalimar
Well, it’s hard coming up with 10 actual mainstream liberals these days. So they had to fudge a little and find conservatives telling liberals what to think. Katie Couric was mean to Sarah Palin once. Maybe they could have counted her, she must be a liberal.
Zifnab
Concern Troll IS CONCERNED!
If you honestly have to ask why – in a two party system – liberals will vote for the candidate whose policies are the most liberal… I can’t help you.
Of course, one could beg the same questions of Shaffer. How, in good conscience, can he continue to oppose Obama?
… oh, right. The blackity black thing.
robert green
greenwald was all over this even when brown people were being tortured. most of the rest really discovered how much they cared when Someone Like Them was getting it bad.
one thing i really loved in the show Oz was the character who had been an accountant with a drinking problem who’d killed someone drunk driving. what was great was having a white middle class character for white middle class viewers to identify with, since they would always look at the big black nigerian guy as Other.
that’s who bradley manning is for most pundits. to show you how strong race remains, it doesn’t matter that manning may be gay/gender-confused and clearly with left politics–all of that and STILL he’s more like your basic shitty WaPo op-ed writer than Arar, say, or Jose Padilla.
RP
Even the National Review agrees that Obama has sold us out!
Bulworth
I was wondering how they came up with 10 “liberals”. But I won’t go to the website to find out the other 7.
piratedan
yeah, how in good conscience can anyone continue to support him, now if only they could aply the converse of this argument regarding tax reform, healthcare costs, environmental issues, wall street reform… how in good conscience could any Republican continue to support the positions that they do… tsk tsk tsk and a tut tut and quite possibly an obligatory harumph
robert green
also john in a live thread, the answer to your previous question “can we stop building nuclear reactors on fault lines” is: no. we can’t. politics and stupidity assure of that fact.
so, given that you surely know this as a member of the reality based community, how do you in good conscience support nukes?
much like the death penalty, which will NEVER only be applied to mass murderers who did it on video then confessed freely and asked to be killed, but also to some guy who was black-in-the-wrong-place, so too and also will nukes never be done in your “perfect” way, but rather in the real world, where stupid reigns. so…you pretty much HAVE to be against them.
Dennis SGMM
On the one hand, this old liberal finds some of Obama’s actions unconscionable. On the other hand, I find all of the Republicans’ actions unconscionable.
liberal
@Dennis SGMM:
That pretty much sums it up.
joe from Lowell
We have a policy consensus?
Uh…they don’t?
It’s amazing how the folks at National Review can’t even imagine the existence of a broad political movement that doesn’t march in lockstep.
joe from Lowell
It isn’t surprising to me that the pro-torture National Review would try to conflate the horrors that took place under the Bush administration – people hung up and beaten to death in the Salt Pit, mock executions, waterboarding, the Iraqi general suffocate at Abu Ghraib, sleep deprivation lasting for a week and accomplished by inflicting enough pain to keep someone who hadn’t slept in six days from falling asleep – with the treatment of Bradley Manning. After all, they’ve been trying for years to sell what took place under the heading “enhanced interrogation” as the equivalent of minor discomfort and unpleasantness.
It’s more surprising to see (some) anti-torture liberals joining them, though.
Omnes Omnibus
@Dennis SGMM: Bingo.
terraformer
@Dennis SGMM:
That is the most succinct description I’ve read since Cleek’s about conservatives.
Joe Beese
@joe from Lowell:
Obama 2012: Only Practices Psychological Torture*
* Except for force-feeding Guantanamo prisoners, which doesn’t count since they’re not white.
Paula
I feel badly for Adam Serwer being on a list with that many ridiculous people on it.
Pity poor English professor Michael Berube for even expressing the idea that “torture being done by the US is wrong” — clearly having a conscience is now a “liberal” trait.
Uloborus
@joe from Lowell:
It’s admittedly understandable, but a lot of liberals are SO devoted to civil rights that they will scream and wail and assume the absolute worst about anything that even just sounds like a civil rights violation when it isn’t. Obama’s getting a lot of that. The standard Army Manual interrogation techniques are now torture, an army prisoner awaiting trial is obviously trustworthy when he says he’s being mistreated, and when a court orders that a criminal is both a threat to human life and has willingly given up his right to trial that’s assassination. Nuance, context, or the facts do not even get a walk-on part in these productions.
Shoemaker-Levy 9
Andrew Sullivan and the city of Berkeley are liberal intellectuals, eh? Not to mention Greenwald’s a bit of a stretch and a couple of them I’ve never heard of. Conservatives really have to make the world remarkably simplistic in order to wrap their heads around it, don’t they.
eemom
@Uloborus:
well put
Joe Beese
@Uloborus:
Loophole 1: Torture is prohibited only of persons detained in an “armed conflict.”
Loophole 2: Only the CIA must close detention centers.
Loophole 3: Officials may still hide some detainees and abusive practices from the Red Cross.
Loophole 4: Abuses not labeled “torture” may continue.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12041
Or when the ACLU says it. Or when Amnesty International says it.
Neither Obama nor the National Security Council are “a court”.
Yeah, facts are a real problem here.
Stillwater
@eemom: well put
It would be ‘well put’ if the issue at hand was the hyperbolic language used by lefties to characterize Manning’s treatment, and how the use of the word ‘torture’ is misapplied here. If the only issue here was a political one, then yes, the case is well made and the contrasts well drawn.
But it misses the key point, which is, and has always been, Is Manning being mistreated in advance of his trial? There’s plenty of evidence that he is. Even if loudmouthed hypocritical liberals overstate that evidence when trying to make their point.
Stefan
and when a court orders that a criminal is both a threat to human life and has willingly given up his right to trial that’s assassination.
Just because we haven’t caught someone doesn’t mean he’s “willingly given up a right to trial.” By that standard the government could execute anyone charged with a capital offense.
Angry Black Lady
Greenwald’s a liberal? I didn’t know the cato institute allowed liberals to contribute there. What gives?
Oh, also, too
.
.
.
NOISES
.
.
.
-Angry Clown Lady
Joe Beese
@Angry Black Lady:
Most relevant to the issue of Obama torturing prisoners!
Angry Black Lady
i missed the part where we had decided based upon evidence other than that from his attorney that the treatment heaped upon manning is the same as abu ghraib.
can you point me to that evidence?
Angry Black Lady
never mind, i forgot this is no longer a reality-based discussion.
LONG LIVE BARACK THE TORTURER!!11lol
eemom
@Angry Black Lady:
wait, they said he’s a “liberal” too? They lost me at “journalist.”
[cue Glenngroupie Svensker swooping in to accuse me of eating Palestinian children in 3….2…..1….]
Fuck U6: A More Accurate Measure of the Total Amount of Duck-Fuckery in the Economy
ABL I’m glad we decided that Park51 shouldn’t be built because Grover Norquist supports it.
Tool.
Suck It Up!
liberal
Just for those who (reasonably) refuse to click on the link, the list is:
* Greenwald
* Sullivan (LOL!)
* Yglesias
* Kevin Drum
* Bérubé
* City of Berkeley, CA
* Chase Madar (apparently writes for The Nation)
* “At the Huffington Post, Kevin Zeese, director of VotersForPeace.us…”
* Adam Serwer
* “Finally, there’s a notable (though not surprising) exception: The New Republic…” (double LOL)
Joe Beese
@Angry Black Lady:
That might be because “same as Abu Ghraib” is a strawman you just made up – as opposed to what anyone actually said.
But if the enforced nudity doesn’t break Manning into fabricating some evidence against Assange and they resort to smearing him with feces, we can revisit the question then.
As for constant solitary confinement constituting torture, I refer you to this:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/03/30/090330fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=all
Angry Black Lady
@Fuck U6: A More Accurate Measure of the Total Amount of Duck-Fuckery in the Economy: Hammer.
Widget.
Um… pipe wrench.
We’re just saying things now, right?
liberal
@eemom:
I wouldn’t accuse you of that, but you’re certainly an apologist for ethnic cleansing.
Stillwater
@Angry Black Lady: This is exactly what I mean. You can’t help but go hyperbolic because the whole issue to you is a political one.
And regarding the shot at Manning’s attorney: Look, your an attorney, right? Are you saying that you would lie about the basic facts at play in advance of a trial in official reports that have weight in the defense of your client?
Angry Black Lady
@Joe Beese: actually no, it’s not something i just made up.
guess who wrote that? go ahead. guess.
joe from Lowell
@Joe Beese:
…the evidence for this statement beng, apparently, that the father of the victim of psychological torture didn’t think there was anything wrong with him.
As opposed to the psychological torture inflicted on Jose Padilla, which left him such a wreck that he was unfit even to be tried.
So, same-same.
Fuck U6: A More Accurate Measure of the Total Amount of Duck-Fuckery in the Economy
ABL: No, I believe you were talkin shit, based on sime tired-ass guilt by association. Really it is no less ridiculous coming from someone who is nominally ‘left’ that it does coming from the Conservatives.
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
And herein the problem: Three people driving this story, two with larger agendas concerning prison conditions and torture, the third who will attempt to raise funds if a true progressive is bitten by a mosquito- and none of them have ever had a sit-down with Manning.
@mclaren:
Please explain to me what the government has to win by torturing Manning. I’ll go out on a limb and assume that his attorney- who has never used the word torture in connection with Manning’s treatment- has been present any time that Manning has been interrogated at Quantico, making it awfully tough to squeeze information out of Manning. The threat of a life sentence pounding rocks at Leavenworth should be effective enough to get Manning to sing, no?
Then there’s the sentencing phase of courts martial, in which treatment of the detainee during the pre-trial phrase figures heavily.
Angry Black Lady
@Stillwater: it’s not about lying. it’s about pushing a narrative. it’s about using the media to your advantage. i think manning’s attorney is doing an excellent job at this. my comment was not a shot at him, it was a statement of litigation tactics. my beef is and always has been with the circular reporting. journalists should do a better job. i don’t think that’s too much to ask.
i also don’t think it’s too much to ask to not be castigated as a torture lover simply for asking questions that should have been asked months ago.
but it’s easier to believe that i support torture than it is to believe that i don’t know what’s going on. none of us really do.
basketball is on and i’m not wasting my day arguing about this crap.
cheers.
joe from Lowell
@Uloborus:
Which is fine! Watching the government like a hawk in the civil liberties realm is what liberals should do.
But you don’t have to insist that the Drug War is exactly like the Final Solution, and therefore the president exactly like Hitler, in order to oppose the drug war. In fact, you probably shouldn’t, because 1) you’re going to make yourself and your cause look silly, and 2) people might take you seriously, and conclude that the Final Solution was pretty much as bad as the Controlled Substances Act.
Frankly, somebody who would insist on that point, instead of just going ahead and condemning the drug war accurately, for what it actually is, is probably a lot more interested in shouting “Just like Hitler!” than in ending the drug war.
Suck It Up!
@Angry Black Lady:
yep.
Corner Stone
@Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again):
You do realize that individuals in newspapers all across the world have written about this incident, right? And the overwhelming majority do not use a quote or link from GG or Hamsher?
That’s not even counting the blogosphere.
joe from Lowell
@Shoemaker-Levy 9:
The worst are those libertarians who think that the world can be meaningfully divided into “libertarians” (about 2% of the population) and “statists,” (the other 98%, which ranges from neo-Nazis to Stalinists to not-quite-absolutist-enough libertarians).
Joe Beese
@Angry Black Lady:
Oh, you understand exactly what’s going on.
But because it’s Obama overseeing the torture regime rather than George W. Bush, you’re willing to let it slide.
That’s OK. When the Democrats lose the White House, I’m sure you’ll find your moral revulsion at torture again.
eemom
@liberal:
No, I’m certainly not.
You, however, are certainly a self-righteous, ill informed little asshole.
Stillwater
@Angry Black Lady: basketball is on and i’m not wasting my day arguing about this crap.
Just a drive by, then, with no follow-up to see the resulting damage? Nice of you.
And about the ‘other evidence’ you so easily discount, the government’s own version of events reads as a deliberate attempt to punish Manning in advance of the trial. He’s on POI, and all the Brig Psych’s say he presents no danger to himself or others. He’s been on suicide watch even when the Brig’s Psych’s haven’t imposed that status. He get’s thrown in the hole (curiously) after public efforts to contact him are rebuffed.
Christ woman, a rational person doesn’t look at this evidence and conclude that it’s all a conspiracy to make Obama look bad. Who the hell thinks that way other than you and Stuck? But I guess that’s what you’re left with. Enjoy the company down there.
Corner Stone
@Uloborus:
You’re ok with this standard? And to be clear, I don’t recall it being a “court” but rather an executive sign-off.
joe from Lowell
@Stillwater:
The issue at hand on this thread is, in fact, the politics surrounding Manning, and how liberals talk about it. You may have noticed that the post itself links to a piece on that topic, and quotes it extensively.
Joe Beese
On the other hand, I can agree with ABL when she writes:
Here’s a fact.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5059/5497583702_a784c0c5f4.jpg
Here’s another one.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5254/5497583680_b1c09e2174.jpg
Obama’s predator drones putting your tax dollars to work.
Joe Beese
@Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again):
The point of torture is torture, as a wise man once observed.
But if they can break Manning into fabricating testimony against Julian Assange, that will be a nice bonus.
joe from Lowell
@Joe Beese:
See, this is what I’m talking about.
Jose Padilla was thrown into a hold and had no contact with anyone except guards who wouldn’t talk to him and interrogators for years. No visits. No letters. No TV. No conversations with other prisoners.
Bradley Manning talks to inmates in nearby cells. His visiting day in every Sunday. He’s seen his father about once a month, and his lawyer about once a week. He watches TV, reads leaders, reads books, and does interviews.
When you say that Bradley Manning is in “constant solitary confinement” and equate the conditions of his detention to that of the people tortured through extended, non-made-up solitary confinement under the Bush administration, not only are my lying and discrediting your cause, buy you’re also promoting the impression that what happened to Jose Padilla is sort of like someone who gets visits from his father once a month, sees his lawyer once a week, yadda yadda yadda.
And I don’t think that the torture crimes committed by the United States government should be minimized like that.
eemom
You know, the more threads are devoted to this stupid argument, the less I give a shit about Bradley Manning.
And now — with the fucking lunatics taking over the asylum in every state capital, the country moving ever-closer to a Dickensian dystopia, and Japan on the verge of a nuclear catastrophe — so-called “liberals” are going to fucking “rally” over Bradley Manning this weekend.
It’s not only the wingnuts who give The Onion a run for its money.
Angry Black Lady
@Joe Beese: overseeing the torture regime. WHAT TORTURE REGIME? jesus christ, you people are so one note.
@Corner Stone: as i pointed out to you weeks ago (which point you ignored in favor of trying to make “angry clown lady” happen), i have not seen any reports or articles that do not use his attorney as the sole source. NONE. and no, that’s not a shot at his attorney, it’s a shot at the reporting.
@Stillwater: this is why i’m not wasting my time. because people refuse to think critically. where did i say it’s all a conspiracy to make obama look bad? where? i think the narrative is being pushed by his attorney because that’s how some cases have to be fought — in the court of public opinion. i think greenwald is trying to sell the book he’s working on, i think hamsher is an attention hog, i think coombs is doing his job (and well) and i don’t know what david house’s deal is, but i sure would be interested to find out.
and he’s not in a hole. this is not some hurricane/bob dylan shit. that’s a characterization that has been pushed because it sound worse than “isolated from the general population.” i’m not pro-military. i’m not pro-torture. i’m pro-facts. and people seem to want to disregard facts in favor of inflammatory rhetoric.
is it really so unreasonable to even ask questions now? is that where we are? obots are beholden to their leader, and glennbots are beholden to their leader and never the twain shall meet?
it’s a sad state of affairs.
::shrug::
joe from Lowell
@Angry Black Lady:
If you keep spotting holes in the
case for invading Iraqaccusations made about Manning’s detention, then you loveSaddam Husseintorture.Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@Corner Stone:
I certainly do.
I’ve also realized that with one exception- the PBS/Frontline interview with Brian Manning- the statements all track back to Greenwald, Hamsher, Kleiman, House and Coombs, with a smidgeon of Pentagon statements thrown in for balance. Of the five on Team Manning I listed, two have visited Manning. Of those two, the one who’s Manning’s lawyer doesn’t use the word torture.
Corner Stone
We are all Jose Padilla now.
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
If I was to walk in on someone raping my ten-year old sister, and I killed the rapist, I could easily justify it in a court of law.
If, in the immediate wake of that justifiable homicide, I walked into a porn theater and started shooting everyone there because I just know that there are pedophiles in there….Not so easy to justify.
cat48
The most sickening thing I’ve seen during this professional left episode is the Washington Post editorial scolding the president. It’s still unbelievable to me that these asshats had enough nerve to publish it when they have Theissen on staff demanding the president quit killing terrorists so they can be interrogated instead at Gitmo and other torture requests; also, Krauthammer.
I still think it’s because this kid is white that anyone gives a shit about him. I guess the professional left takes care of its own, whether it’s TRUE or not! I’m out.
Joe Beese
@Angry Black Lady:
Is your basketball game in half-time?
I mean the torture being practiced in Obama’s secret prisons in Afghanistan.
And the force-feeding of Obama’s victims in the not-at-all-secret prison at Guantanamo Bay.
And the psychological torture of one of Obama’s own soldiers for the unforgivable offense of embarrassing his administration.
That torture regime.
Stillwater
@Angry Black Lady:
where did i say it’s all a conspiracy to make obama look bad?
At comment 30:
is it really so unreasonable to even ask questions now? is that where we are? obots are beholden to their leader, and glennbots are beholden to their leader and never the twain shall meet?
Well, you sure do a good job of impersonating someone who is just this unreasonable. You’ve been out front of the ‘discredit GG and discredit the argument’ nonsense right from the beginning.
Corner Stone
Let’s separate this for clarity. If newspaper reporters were writing a story on Manning and they didn’t ask his attorney for attribution then we would slag his/her ass for lazy BS reporting.
So it’s very easy to keep including Coombs in a group of Manning 5 along with Hamsher and GG, but it is in no way justifiable.
And I love how Kleiman is now being included for bias as well. Even though he wrote a piece that didn’t include any links or quotes from ANY of the others listed. What’s he getting out of the deal? Is Hamsher splitting the pie, or does Kleiman have his own book coming out? Fucking bullshit.
This is bullshit. If someone wrote a critical piece and didn’t rely on others for quotes then that person would be included as part of the Manning 6 and so on and so on.
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@Corner Stone:
Exposure.
joe from Lowell
From where I’m sitting, Manning isn’t getting all of this attention from the Professional Left because he’s white (or gay).
He’s getting all of this attention because he helped Wikileaks, and his defenders think that Wikileaks’ activities are wonderful and should be promoted.
Corner Stone
@Angry Clown Lady:
That’s because you don’t care to bother. They are everywhere, and I’ve previously linked to a couple but for some god damned odd reason, they just never seem to be quite good enough. For one reason or another.
Joe Beese
@joe from Lowell:
Embarrassing Bush = Good
Embarrassing Obama = Bad
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@joe from Lowell:
That’s certainly true of Greenwald and House, if not also Ms. Showmethemoney Hamsher.
Stillwater
@Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again): This is absolutely ridiculous. And I mean on its own terms. What you’re saying is that people who like Manning want to see them well treated in advance of the trial, right? Isn’t the logical corollary of this that people who don’t like him want to see him punished in advance of the trial?
Who’s side are you on here?
Paula
@joe from Lowell:
Interesting. Is it that they like the idea of Wikileaks, or that that they believe it’s actually worked to get them the results they claim they want?
The Wikileaks/ Assange philosophy is appealing in theory, but in practice it seems to be disappearing as a talking point.
eemom
@joe from Lowell:
as previously discussed, he is also not getting all this attention because the attention-givers care about civil rights, or people in solitary, or inhumane and unjust treatment of prisoners, or the presumption of innocence.
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@Corner Stone:
I’ll agree with you on this.
I’ve got a sneaking suspicion that every time Greenwald and/or FDL drop the word torture, Coombs grimaces.
I can’t imagine that anyone pays more visits to Manning than Coombs. I’ve only had one problem with anything he’s released, and that was in his December blog post, where he claimed that Manning wasn’t allowed to exercise outdoors, when Manning had been exercising outdoors up until 4 or 5 weeks prior (according to House). Funny thing about northern Virginia in November and December: It’s cold and rainy.
Tim
@joe from Lowell:
He’s getting all of this attention because he helped Wikileaks, and his defenders think that Wikileaks’ activities are wonderful and should be promoted.
They ARE wonderful, and they SHOULD be promoted, and yes, Manning is a true hero.
How the hell anyone with half a brain who isn’t a wingnut could think the U.S. government, after all the lies and horror of the last ten years not to mention the 30 before that, should be believed and entitled to secrecy, is way beyond me.
The fascist/tribal human tendency is strong, even at BJ.
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@Stillwater:
Okay, I’m not quite sure how you got that from the comment to which you replied…But while I don’t think anyone on the prog-lib side of this wants to see Manning mistreated, the suggestion of mistreatment certainly plays into the “Mean old government hates WikiLeaks and will do anything to quash it” meme advanced by Greenwald, House and Hamsher. They have nothing to lose concerning their WikiLeaks plank even if they’re wrong.
Except their credibility, that is.
smedley
@Dennis SGMM: Well said.
Bob Loblaw
@Angry Black Lady:
This has always fascinated me. You realize you just put a Salon columnist on equal ground with the President of the United States right?
What it is about this writer guy that scares the hell out of you so?
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@Tim:
Setting aside the two “No true Scotsman” qualifiers there, I’m just not so sure that it’s wise to throw the baby out with the bathwater. What good was done by releasing the memo concerning Berlusconi’s perceived (presumably by someone in the US embassy in Rome) man-crush on Putin? None. The effect that release had on US-Italian relations? Well, not good.
Tim
@Bob Loblaw:
Frankly, I see no reason to assume a holder of that office is any more informed or any less or more of an asshole than anyone else. See Bush, G.W.
And I certainly trust the word of GG far more than the obviously unreliable word of BO.
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@Tim:
I think you just justified ABL’s comment, Tim.
Joe Beese
@Bob Loblaw:
He owes no allegiance to the Democratic Party, he’s not afraid to call torture “torture”, and he backs up everything he writes.
A most worrisome combination to the Obot.
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@Stillwater:
On this, I agree wholeheartedly. Manning’s probably faced some chickenshit treatment from the marines at Quantico. But chickenshit doesn’t equal torture. Conflating it so only does a disservice to those who are being tortured.
Stefan
What good was done by releasing the memo concerning Berlusconi’s perceived (presumably by someone in the US embassy in Rome) man-crush on Putin? None. The effect that release had on US-Italian relations? Well, not good.
The effect on US-Berlusconi relations? Not good, but that says more about Berlusconi’s sensitivities than us.
The long-term effect on US-Italian relations? Nil. What, we’re not going to be friends anymore?
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@Joe Beese:
He’s not afraid to call anything torture, and that’s my problem with him.
Prevention of injury watch, meant, amongst other things, to keep Manning from getting shivved in general lock-up? “Solitary confinement! That’s torture!”
Exercising in an enclosed space rather than the outdoor exercise yard IN THE WINTER? “Torture!”
Given a 9 (11 on the weekends) hour “lights-out” window in which to sleep, but no sleep between roll call and lights-out? “Torture!”
joe from Lowell
@Joe Beese:
That’s a great theory. The only problem is, the Wikileaks leaks were much more embarrassing for Bush than for Obama.
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@Stefan:
And when any foreign politician anywhere around the world hears any innuendo concerning themselves, they wonder if the US isn’t behind spreading this around as some sort of misinformation campaign.
Nope, no long-term effects there.
joe from Lowell
@Tim:
That’s fine. You’re entitled to your opinion.
Just as long as you don’t put on some pretense about this ‘movement’ being about Manning’s detention conditions.
ED: I take that back. A great deal of the people who’ve jumped on the bandwagon actually are primarily concerned about detention conditions. They’re just being exploited by those driving it.
Take a look at the statement put out by the groups that organized the rally at Quantico last week. Take a look at what they say they’re against.
Not a word about torture, but DAMN are they against war!
Tim
@Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again):
Please refer me to WHICH one of the Angry Clown Lady’s (formerly angry black lady) 14,000 obot comments you mean. Thank you.
Tim
@joe from Lowell:
Hey, I don’t pretend to speak for anyone other than myself in my comments, let alone some alleged “movement.”
I think Manning, if he did what he is accused of doing, has done far more good than ill. AND I am appalled by the conditions of his detainment, regardless of his alleged guilt. Those are not mutually exclusive positions to hold.
Angry Black Lady
@Corner Stone: nice try. you did not link a single source. not one. you didn’t then, and you didn’t now. ETA: all roads lead back to manning’s attorney. journalists should be reporting on the story, not reporting on the narrative. it’s great that manning’s attorney is so effective at his job. not so great that the bloggers/reporters stinks at theirs.
you can change the subject and call names all you want, but that does not change the fact.
@Stillwater: that comment was snark in reference to another comment on another thread referring to barack the torturer.
it was also snark related to the fact that the so-called manning supporters cannot help but make this about obots loving torture no matter how many times (some of) us obots say that’s not the issue.
the two factions are and will continue to argue past each other. one side believes glenn’s word is bond. the other side (who will say anything to protect their leader, of course) would like some fucking facts before taking up the FREE MANNING cause and is tired of being castigated as torture lovers, torturer protectors or whatever else is the bon mot du jour.
it’s stupid. it’s just plain stupid.
ACL fka ABL
i wonder if angryclownlady.com is available? i should check. when the movement goes beyond tim and corner stone, maybe i’ll consider pursuing this clown moniker thing.
FlipYrWhig
My pet peeve on Manning coverage is that it seems to me as though every individual indignity that has been inflicted upon him is being treated as a permanent condition of his imprisonment. He was forced to sleep naked. True. How many nights? How isolated is isolated? Was he ever seen as _genuinely_ at risk of suicide, or has it all been harassment? I don’t know the answers to these things. But the way the story is told, it’s as an accumulation of many bad things — without a corresponding sense of how _typical_ or _long-lasting_ those bad things were. And I think it makes a difference.
Angry Black Lady
@Tim:
“I’d like facts.”
“But you’re an Obot.”
“Ok, sure, but do you have any facts?”
“But you love torture. and Obots.”
“Ok, I love torture and I’m an Obot. Do you have facts?”
“It’s just like Jose Padilla.”
“No it’s not.”
“Yes it is. It’s torture.”
“Do you have facts?”
“You’re an Obot. That’s a fact.”
and so on…
Angry Black Lady
@Joe Beese: backs up everything he writes by citing an attorney whose job it is to advance the interests of his client.
real bang-up job, that.
ETA: i’m talking about manning being “tortured.” i assumed you were too. if you’re going to change the subject, a little advanced notice would be nice.
Joe Beese
@Angry Black Lady:
Sorry, but that’s one of the occupational hazards of politically supporting a torturer.
Even one who signed the Lilly Ledbetter Act.
Angry Black Lady
@Joe Beese: hahahaha. exactly. round and round we go, jack.
Angry Black Lady
@Bob Loblaw: he doesn’t scare me. it was a remark related to the lines that have been drawn here and on other blogs. of course i don’t equate glenn to obama. but one has to admit that the camps seem to be Team Obot and Team Janewald-bot, no? I believe the terms are silly, but hey — when in rome…
Tim
@Joe Beese:
Joe Beese, can we get you on board with the “Angry Clown Lady” rebranding?
Joe Beese
@Angry Black Lady:
Sorry if you’re having a hard time keeping up with Obama’s various torture programs.
Concerning Manning specifically, the United Nations Convention Against Torture prohibits prolonged solitary confinement.
I await your explanation of how they’re also discredited by some association with the Cato Institute.
MattR
I am not trying to pick on the following two comments, I just think they perfectly illustrate the mistake of pretending that there are two monolithic groups battling it out and as a reminder that people who are “on the same side” can have vastly different opinions on the topic.
@Temporarily Max McG ee (soon enough to be Andy K again):
@eemom:
Tim
@Angry Black Lady:
ABL/ACL:
This isn’t complicated, though you seem to want to make it that way: Sources (primarily GG), whose word and credibility I generally trust FAR more than I trust Barack Obama or the fucking lying scum U.S. military, have made a convincing case that Bradley Manning is being treated in a way that does not comport with even the military’s own rules on such things. (I’ll leave for this post the parsing of the word “torture” to you and others)
Because the military, who is holding BM, have no credibility, and because its accuser (primarily GG) does, it is an easy intellectual choice to come down on the side of GG and go with the weight of the evidence thus far.
You are forever making assumptions on the basis of your hunches and biases as they relate to plenty of other matters, but in the case of Manning and the Trustworthy U.S. military, you demand rigorous proof and footnotes.
I believe you know in your heart that they are treating Manning as roughly as they can get away with and probably breaking their own laws and rules, but because it reflects poorly on Barack, you are letting your emotions and allegiance get in the way of your intellect, which is disappointing. You are obviously far smarter than that, which makes it evident that your credulity in this matter is a choice.
Is your indiscriminant loyalty to Obama at all influenced by your your race and his race? Is it allowed to ask that? Have you asked yourself that?
You cry “racist” and “bigot” quite freely when you see it; which is why I ask if you have applied that scrutiny to your own thinking.
Joe Beese
@Tim:
She’s scary. But clowns are scarier.
I just wish she had the intellectual honesty to admit that she doesn’t care that Obama is torturing Manning (and our guests in Guantanamo and Afghanistan) – rather than these pathetic attempts to evade the issue.
I exhort her to demonstrate the courage of her convictions. Announce that she endorses Barack Obama despite the fact that he’s a torturer because he signed the Lilly Ledbetter Act, or because he makes the trains run on time, or because BOO PALIN!, or whatever else she thinks justifies it.
I’ll disagree with her position, of course. But at least I won’t have to dismiss her as a liar.
water balloon
This is too personalized. The US prison system needs to be reformed. Ubiquitous prison rape is a much greater problem than solitary confinement. But solitary should be reserved for only the most dangerous convicted criminals. The military should allow Manning more visitors and an extra hour or two out of his cell daily and more access to reading materials.
Uloborus
@Angry Black Lady:
May I point something out in the reasoning of your opponents, ABL? No matter which aspect of their story you challenge, they go back to assuming every other aspect must be true. For example, it was just pointed out that ‘solitary confinement’ is an odd description for someone who is able to talk to his neighbors in the cells next door. But notice that it’s back in Joe Beese’s latest reply. A rumor about secret prisons put forward by a political think tank is treated as fact. ‘Feeding inmates on hunger strikes’ – and I thought making sure not to feed them during the day when Ramadan would make that an offense against their religion was an added interesting touch – becomes force-feeding as a method of torture.
They have a narrative. They’re sticking to it. Anything that can be fit into the narrative is accepted, no matter how shaky. Anything that doesn’t fit the narrative is either ignored or screamed at.
Uloborus
@Tim:
Ah, well. You’ve made your point quite well. Your argument is based on your bias. Period. You like one side, not the other. You ‘know in your heart’ the truth.
Angry Black Lady
@Tim: don’t presume to know anything about me, or what i think, or to whom i am loyal, what i believe, or for what reason.
i call racism and bigotry like i see it. i don’t not cry it “quite freely.” that is your perception of my writing, and it is likely colored by your… well… color.
do not patronize me. do not tell me that i’m emotional or allied to obama because of race.
do not change the subject, which is you and your ilk’s feeling that you have taken up some righteous cause on behalf of manning because he is some kind of hero, and you have done so — as you have just admitted — based on the reporting of a man who is currently writing a fucking book about this! and because i have not taken up that same cause and am not chanting free manning, there must be something wrong with me? something wrong with my values?
do you see the ridiculousness of your position? that you are criticizing me for not taking up your cause du jour because i want facts and i don’t yet have them? you are free to make whatever assumptions you want based on your hunches and biases. i don’t care. but don’t castigate me in the name of righteousness! it’s obnoxious.
if you want to rely on glenn, fine. i don’t want to. now does that mean i believe the military is capital T-Trustworthy? no. but again, you baselessly ascribe that position to me because what i’m actually saying to you doesn’t matter or isn’t sinking in.
i have explained what my issue with this manning crap is. repeatedly and despite my explanation, you’re trying to ascribe a racial motive because it must be a black thing — “oh it’s just because she’s black.”
fuck that noise. that is bullshit. i’ve tried to keep my cool throughout this because i don’t let anonymous people on the internet bother me (even ones whose only kind words to me were about my tits) but now i’m getting irritated, so i’m done.
have fun trying to make angry clown lady happen instead of actually trying to comprehend what i’m saying.
(edited for grammar and whatnot)
Angry Black Lady
@Joe Beese: dismiss me as a liar. i don’t give a fuck. i long ago dismissed you as an idiot.
i’m out. you people are fucking idiots.
Stefan
And when any foreign politician anywhere around the world hears any innuendo concerning themselves, they wonder if the US isn’t behind spreading this around as some sort of misinformation campaign.
Um, they already wonder that. In fact, many of them already know it. How naive would they have to be not to suspect that?
Joe Beese
@Angry Black Lady:
Well, you kind of announce that yourself with your pseudonym, no?
I personally don’t care if you support Obama because he’s black, or because he’s a Democrat, or because he gives nice speeches. You are supporting a torturer and a war criminal. And that’s not nice.
HyperIon
@Angry Black Lady wrote a bunch of stuff…
I often find your writing hyperbolic but I must weigh in here. Thank you for being persistent (and NOT hyperbolic). You are making a positive contribution to this thread and not being too snarky. Plus the failure of journalists to DO THEIR FUCKING JOB is one of my pet rants. ;=)
Paula
@water balloon:
Call me when we can start a flame-war about overcrowded prisons, poor medical care for inmates, and the amount of young men of color incarcerated on a daily basis.
I’m from KAH-LEE-FUH-NYAH, and I’m genuinely sick about hearing the same stories. Not to be too cynical, but it’s not a shock to the system to hear our gov’t treat foreign nationals and military personnel in questionable ways when it treats its civilian citizens so poorly.
HyperIon
@Corner Stone:
god, this is tiresome.
Surely you can do better.
or sit quietly.
HyperIon
@Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again) asked :
Recall Henry Wotton who said: “An ambassador is an honest gentleman sent to lie abroad for the good of his country.”
Liars do not expect to be outed. WikiLeaks undermines that expectation. People used to be OK with just trusting the powers-that-be to tell “lies” that led to good outcomes. However, recent history has undermined this trust.
There is no simple solution. There is no single right course of action. Life is complicated and often brutal. Even platitudes don’t help.
Stillwater
@HyperIon: This is one the strangest argument I’ve ever seen. It lacks any semblance of principle or morality, or nationalism, or even practical outcomes. Instead it’s based completely on preserving the status quo. In short, ‘Lying is what we do, and we can’t do that anymore!’ For better or worse, whether you agree or disagree, this is exactly the view that WL leakers find problematic in international relations and institutional behavior in general.
Tim
@Angry Black Lady:
you are free to make whatever assumptions you want based on your hunches and biases.
And so are you. As you do frequently when it comes to Obama. You support him, no matter what. Which is why you have no credibility when it comes to any issue regarding Obama.
I enjoy a lot of your writing. But I enjoyed it a lot more before you revealed yourself to be a complete, blind Obot.
And, oh please, everyone here makes assumptions about other commenters. YOU do it all the time. Just as you did now in assuming that I ask a question regarding the possibility of your racial alliances to Obama because I am allegedly white.
HyperIon
@Stillwater: this is exactly the view that WL leakers find problematic in international relations and institutional behavior in general
Hmm. And I agree with them.
I was responding to Max McGee implying that some lies serve us so we should support lying (and condemn WLeakers). But I’m not going to argue that if only we all stopped lying, the world would be perfect.
Tim
@Angry Black Lady:
Hmmm…no. I asked a question. You apparently refuse to answer. You prefer to make MORE assumptions instead. That’s ok, I guess, but it doesn’t make you any more credible on this issue or any other.
Nice misdirection. Oh, isn’t “misdirection” one of your favorite tropes. In fact, I’d be so bold as to suggest that your accusations of “misdirection” are…a misdirection.
oooh…
Tim
@Angry Black Lady:
Oh horseshit. You let anonymous people on the internet get you worked up all the time. That is your entire schtick.
And you certainly didn’t mind the compliments on your breasts when I made them. In fact, I seem to recall a cute response acknowledging my appreciation of your breasts. In fact, too, and also, I would suggest that your outfit in that photograph, prominently featuring a low neckline which proudly displayed your ample cleavage, was entirely designed to call attention to your “tits.” Are you going to deny that?
This should be fun…
Tim
@Angry Black Lady:
you say that…but you always come back. Weren’t you supposed to be off watching basketball a few hours ago?
Tim
@Angry Black Lady
uh…your screenname is ANGRY Black Lady. And most of your screeds are full of inflammatory, obviously emotional rhetoric.
I think emotion is a great thing. I think emotion is a wonderful, human quality that can be channeled to awesomely positive ends. But please don’t deny that it plays a big part in your online personae.
That is just bullshit.
eemom
@Tim:
you are a caricature of a parody of a joke.
More seriously, you are a sick misogynist fuck.
Angry Black Lady
@Tim: you’re gross.
first of all, as hyperion said, my writing is hyperbolic. so no, i don’t let people get me worked up all the time. not my problem you can’t tell.
second, i generally monitor threads i’m involved in. “i’m out” meant i’m not going to sit here and argue with you neanderthals who resort to name-calling and other stupid bullshit when you’ve been bested (by a GIRL no less! a GIRL with TITTIES!!).
third, the angry part i’ve explained. repeatedly. but being a dumbass, you don’t comprehend.
all you see is boobs and tits and BLACKITY BLACK BLACK boobs and tits.
aren’t you supposed to be gay? i’ve never heard of a tit-obsessed gay man, but it’s not like you are necessarily who or what you say you are online, right?
and that’s why i don’t let anonymous people on the internet get me worked up. you conflate getting worked up in my writing with getting worked up talking to the morons who relish dropping little turds in my posts, gleefully awaiting the chance to throw rocks at me in the schoolyard. with every comment, you people make yourselves look more and more idiotic. i don’t even have to do anything. you do it all yourselves.
you’re like a bunch of prepubescent 12 year olds. taunting, and neener neenering, and sneering. this ain’t my first rodeo and if you’re trying to make the black girl cry, you’re going to have to come a lot harder than that, asshole.
get it through your head: i don’t give a fuck about you and i’m not interested in pleasing you or even sparking your attention. oddly, however, there are plenty of you who seem to be cataloging my every comment and post and then, stupidly, drawing stupid conclusions therefrom because — gasp! — you’re stupid.
i pity you, tim. really, i do. it must be so emasculating… being beat by a girl with nice tits. i hope your boyfriend has a nice set of moobs on which you can fixate so you don’t need to get your kicks online.
now seriously, crawl back into the hovel from whence you came.
scoot!
Angry Black Lady
@Tim: oh and you’ve been banned for being creepy and pervy. see you in a week!
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@MattR:
I don’t think there are two monolithic groups. I think there’s one monolithic group that supports the Greenwald meme that Manning’s being tortured, and I think they’re part of a positive feedback loop. Greenwald started the meme in December, all other references track back to him in some way or another. And Greenwald does have other irons in the same fire, as an avid supporter of WikiLeaks and as someone who’s authoring a book on prison conditions.
Supporting Manning but not the torture meme are his father, who claims that his son is innocent of all of the charges (and is the only , and Coombs, who hasn’t mentioned torture, but hasn’t exactly let on that he thinks Manning is innocent, rather seems to be working the mentally incompetent or justifiable actions angles.
Then there are people like me, who appreciate the release of the “Collateral Murder” video, but think that it’s impossible to consider the 260,000+ memo dump whistle-blowing but the equivalent of an illegal search and seizure type of dragnet; who furthermore don’t consider what’s been described as torture as torture; who have noticed that when some of the evidence of that supposed “torture” has been shown to be bogus (banned from watching international news; asked if he’s okay every 5 minutes, even while sleeping) that those who have been pushing the torture meme haven’t walked it back.
Then I’m sure there are real right wingers who think that Manning is 100% guilty, and couldn’t care less if he is being tortured.
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@water balloon:
But then thess questions arise: Is Manning’s treatment par for the course for detainees under PoI watch? If so, why would Manning deserve better treatment than any other soldier, sailor, airman or marine on PoI watch?
Corner Stone
@HyperIon: It was snark for God’s sake you dumb bastard. And fuck you. Also too.
Corner Stone
@Angry Black Lady: You banned Tim for that?
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@HyperIon:
Witty- funny even- but I wonder about the context. Is silence what Wotton considered lying, or is the lie the smile on the ambassador’s face as he says nothing?
Angry Black Lady
@Corner Stone: yup. cole-approved. it’s possible to have discussions without being leery and sexist.
Paula
@Angry Black Lady:
But defending your integrity = supporting Bradley Manning’s torture and all bad things about Amerika! DON’T YOU SEE?!
Oh the hippie punching!
rickstersherpa
I might send a e-mail to John for posting as I know he was in the military, but I will post this from the perspective of current JAG.
1. Pre-trial confinement is an exception that the Command/Prosecution has to justify before a military magistrate. Most soldiers facing charges, even very serious charges are usually not held in confinement. If held in confinement, he has the opportunity to get it reviewed. “Throughout the confinement review process, a servicemember is provided a military lawyer, at no expense, to assist him or her. The “commander review” must confirm, in writing:
that there is probable cause to believe that the servicemember committed an offense triable by courts-martial;
there is probable cause to believe that confinement is necessary to prevent the servicemember from fleeing or engaging in serious criminal misconduct;
and there is probable cause to believe that lesser forms of restraint would be inadequate.
The “magistrate review” must find, in writing:
that there is probable cause to believe that the servicemember committed an offense triable by courts-martial;
based on the preponderance of the evidence (51%), there is reason to believe that confinement is necessary to prevent the servicemember from fleeing or engaging in serious criminal misconduct;
based on the preponderance of the evidence (51%), there is reason to believe that lesser forms of restraint would be inadequate.”
I don’t think most people (Glenn Greenwald excepted) who have a problem with PFC Manning be held in confinement based on the serious charges against him. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/tag/bradley-manning/
The question is his treatment. And in this Manning and his defense supporters have an advantage on the Government. In part because of the Privacy Act and in part because of cultural inhibition against making pre-trial statements or comments about the charges and Government behavior before anticipated court room proceedings, we are only getting one side of the story. And Manning, though an Army soldier, is being held by Marines, who probably have some pretty strong resentment toward based on a feeling that he has let down the “team” and perhaps have gotten some of their friends hurt or killed because of his actions. Not saying this is true, just saying that this is the feeling they have.
In conclusion, I think it is a very open question about whether PFC Manning’s treatment amounts to torture. He and his lawyers will certainly be able to bring this all up in open hearings at the Article 32 investigation and in Article 39a hearings before a military judge and then we will get to hear the Government’s evidence.
If Manning has been mistreated, I don’t think, contrary to Glenn Greenwald, it has been done to coerce testimony from him to implicate Assange or others. As Glenn, an experience litigator, would realize if he thought about it such testimony would be worse than useless, as even in Guantanamo, the military judges in the military commission system have excluded all evidence derived from coerced/tortured interrogations, and a Federal District Court would be even harsher. Even if a judge allowed Manning to appear, he would likely go renegade and renounce his testimony as information he suppllied to satisfy his captors and improve the condition of his confinement.
As John notes this is one of the problems of starting wars. Those who fight them want to win, and that basically gets down to killing those on the other side before they kill you. And in an insurgency, pretty much the whole population, men, women, and children are “the other side.” And killing, and seeing your friends killed and maimed, is an emotional thing to say the least. You don’t want to have done it vain, or believe it was in vain. So those who do the fighting and dying in Afghanistan, Iraq, and apparently soon Libya don’t see the Jane Hamshers and Glenn Greenwald as dissenters and protesters. They seem them trying to hell the other team. I am not saying that this right, but it is a mindset you tend to enter based on the necessity of the case. Jane, Glenn, and PFC Manning are not going to be liked by military, in particular the officer corps, since they view them as trying to cause them to lose the fight that country committed them to once upon a time.
As Andrew Bacevich so eloquently writes, we should not be making those commitments and vainly sacrificing heroes like Professor Bacevich’s late son.
Stranger Reader
@Angry Black Lady: Wow, that was really lame. It didn’t seem justified at all.
eemom
@rickstersherpa:
Good, thoughtful post.
Just one quibble:
Nope.
eemom
@Stranger Reader:
Being a “stranger,” perhaps you’re not familiar with the pathological level of woman-hatred that “Tim” routinely displays on these threads.
imo one of the lowest forms of trollery that pervades this blog is “strangers” who pop up out of nowhere to pass judgment on matters of which they know nothing.
Corner Stone
@Angry Black Lady:
You’re not only a chickenshit, but a liar as well.
The Guardian
That’s just one of the at least four examples I’ve linked to. It doesn’t mention Coombs or any of the dreaded and horribly biased others.
Angry Black Lady
@Corner Stone: first, i wasn’t involved in that thread. and second, jesus fucking christ. follow the links in those articles. IT’S NOT THAT HARD. or do you really think a statement in passive voice about “what is reported” passes muster and there is no requirement to dig and see who reported what to whom?
If the other articles you mentioned are the ones you mentioned in this post, i addressed those in that post.
don’t you love when a person is so quick to call others a liar when it is in fact, the name-caller who is at best, deluding himself?
i can’t understand why you keep pushing this point after i’ve proven you wrong again and again.
keep digging. keep name-calling. pile more idiocy on top of idiocy.
Angry Black Lady
@Stranger Reader: good thing what seems justified to you isn’t the standard around here.
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@Corner Stone:
From that linked editorial:
That isn’t exactly tracking back to the source, is it?
I’ll disagree with ABL on the point that Coombs is the sole source in every other article, because a lot of what’s reported tracks back to David House. Those two were the only original sources of new information until the Pentagon started issuing it’s rather limited number of statements. The Frontline interview with Brian Manning just joined as the fourth source last week.
Corner Stone
@Angry Black Lady: My comment at 328 of the “Change change change” thread went to CNN, where a military spokesmen confirmed Manning was in solitary confinement. There was no quote from Coombs, or GG or Hamsher, or House, or Kleiman, or, or, or…
“Manning arrived at 9:30 p.m. Thursday and was given a physical exam and medical screenings, according to Lt. Col. Rob Manning (not related) of the Military District of Washington. The suspect is in solitary confinement and is being observed in accordance with normal operating procedures, the spokesman said.”
CNN link
So what’s wrong with that link I posted?
You’re just pathetic. It doesn’t matter how many links I post, you’re gonna lie about them too.
Corner Stone
@Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again):
And this is the hilariousness of it. If it said, “reported by Manning’s attorney David Coombs” then you and dumass would slag it.
If it said, “according to an anonymous military official who didn’t want to go on record for…” then you’d still pish posh it.
You guys have set up a lovely little double standard that nothing’s ever going to get past.
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@Corner Stone:
Yes. Reported on August 1, as Manning was being evaluated/processed (he’d arrived at Quantico three days before).
Context, man. Not even Hamsher started screaming about this at that point. It’s another four months before Greenwald started throwing around the t-word in relation to this case.
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@Corner Stone:
Oh, Counselor Troi, are you sure you aren’t projecting?
The day I see an anonymous military official- with what looks like inside info on this case- question Manning’s treatment is the day I reassess. But I don’t think I’m going to see it shake out that way.
Angry Black Lady
oh, so that’s why you’re so up in arms about TORTUUUUURREEE. because of the one CNN article in fucking july that says he is in solitary confinement in accordance with normal operating procedures? it’s not the WaPo or NYT or Kleinman blog which you screamed didn’t link to one of the Manning 4?
give me a fucking break.
you’re either being purposefully obtuse or you’re being stupid. you’ve been corrected over and over and over and you keep spouting the same shit over and over and over.
have fun at the save bradley manning rally.
EJ
@Angry Black Lady:
NYT on March 4
For God’s sake, that took about 2 minutes of googling.
Corner Stone
@EJ: That was a nice try, but you’re not going to get anywhere with her. She’s not too smart but she makes up for it by being extra stubborn.
You see, even though the military confirms the claims in question, the article mentions the name Coombs in it somewhere.
That’s more than enough for ABL to distort the words written on the page into whatever she wants them to mean.
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@EJ:
Walk it back:
Note that this statement hasn’t been challenged by Coombs, Greenwald, House or FDL in the week plus since it was issued. But neither have they walked back statements that he was forced to stand naked outside of his cell- as if they had never mentioned it before…
Angry Black Lady
@Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again): why bother? these people don’t process reason. all military statements are a lie (except for in the cases when the statements fit the narrative), whatever his attorney says is the truth and if you question it then you’re taking pot-shots at his attorney.
those of us who dare ask questions before getting all riled up love torture. the end.
derp.
EJ
@Angry Black Lady:
Who the fuck are “these people?” You asked for a source on Manning’s treatment other than his lawyer, GG, et. al., I provided one. I’m not the one lacking in reasoning skills.
Good to know that Our Leaders have now issued a statement contradicting their own spokesman. I’m sure that means there’s nothing to see here.
EJ
Also, I can’t speak for the other commenters on this board, since I don’t know them, but you’ve never said anything to indicate you “love torture.” You’ve just got blinders on when it comes to criticism of Obama. I did too for a while – I mean, I worked on his campaign full time, gratis, for 6 weeks – but I’m no longer in denial.