I Am Bradley Manning

Here is the trailer for the website I Am Bradley Manning. The website is to raise awareness for Manning's legal troubles. Manning gave diplomatic communications to Wikileaks. Manning became troubled by the U.S. government supporting death squads and torture in Iraq. Manning went to his superiors and told to keep his mouth shut.

How Manning Handling Eroding Progressive Support

Note to fellow progressives: Blogfather Kevin Hayden said he isn't voting for Obama in 2012. Obama seems so concerned with the 3 percent of undecided voters who don't follow daily politics. What is Obama going to do if he loses the base. The Republican Party has a built in base with the Tea Party.

Hayden took exception with Obama on the treatment of Bradley Manning. The latter is accused of supplying classified information to Wikileaks. Manning's attorney, David Coombs, told blogger Jane Hamsher that Manning is being stripped down.

On Wednesday March 2, 2011, PFC Manning was told that his Article 138 complaint requesting that he be removed from Maximum custody and Prevention of Injury (POI) Watch had been denied by the Quantico commander, Colonel Daniel J. Choike. Understandably frustrated by this decision after enduring over seven months of unduly harsh confinement conditions, PFC Manning inquired of the Brig operations officer what he needed to do in order to be downgraded from Maximum custody and POI. As even Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell has stated, PFC Manning has been nothing short of “exemplary” as a detainee. Additionally, Brig forensic psychiatrists have consistently maintained that there is no mental health justification for the POI Watch imposed on PFC Manning. In response to PFC Manning’s question, he was told that there was nothing he could do to downgrade his detainee status and that the Brig simply considered him a risk of self-harm. PFC Manning then remarked that the POI restrictions were “absurd” and sarcastically stated that if he wanted to harm himself, he could conceivably do so with the elastic waistband of his underwear or with his flip-flops.

Without consulting any Brig mental health provider, Chief Warrant Officer Denise Barnes used PFC’s Manning’s sarcastic quip as justification to increase the restrictions imposed upon him under the guise of being concerned that PFC Manning was a suicide risk. PFC Manning was not, however, placed under the designation of Suicide Risk Watch. This is because Suicide Risk Watch would have required a Brig mental health provider’s recommendation, which the Brig commander did not have. In response to this specific incident, the Brig psychiatrist assessed PFC Manning as “low risk and requiring only routine outpatient followup [with] no need for … closer clinical observation.” In particular, he indicated that PFC Manning’s statement about the waist band of his underwear was in no way prompted by “a psychiatric condition.”

While the commander needed the Brig psychiatrist’s recommendation to place PFC Manning on Suicide Risk Watch, no such recommendation was needed in order to increase his restrictions under POI Watch. The conditions of POI Watch require only psychiatric input, but ultimately remain the decision of the commander.

Given these circumstances, the decision to strip PFC Manning of his clothing every night for an indefinite period of time is clearly punitive in nature. There is no mental health justification for the decision. There is no basis in logic for this decision. PFC Manning is under 24 hour surveillance, with guards never being more than a few feet away from his cell. PFC Manning is permitted to have his underwear and clothing during the day, with no apparent concern that he will harm himself during this time period. Moreover, if Brig officials were genuinely concerned about PFC Manning using either his underwear or flip-flops to harm himself (despite the recommendation of the Brig’s psychiatrist) they could undoubtedly provide him with clothing that would not, in their view, present a risk of self-harm. Indeed, Brig officials have provided him other items such as tear-resistant blankets and a mattress with a built-in pillow due to their purported concerns.

I don't know if the allegations are true. However, I think it is fair to have a healthy dose of skepticism after the U.S. military's past disasters with the handling of detainees. The best case scenario is the the Obama administration has let the detainment of Manning become a PR disaster. This is an administration that came into office vowing to clean up the detainment abuses that ran rampant in the Bush administration.

The Wikileaks provided valuable information into how the United States government works. America has a Fourth estate. If we do not have access into the inner-workings of our government then our democracy fails. At the same time, we are a nation of laws. Manning is accountable to military laws, if he is found guilty of revealing classified information. The same holds true for Chief Warrant Officer Denise Barnes. Sec. of DEfense Robert Gates should investigate the allegations against Barnes.

Politically, whose vote does Obama feel he is going to gain from the handling of Manning. Is the stripping down detainees vote the new NASCAR dad?

TSA Saving Nude Pictures

Remember when the Obama administration was telling Americans that the TSA body scanners did not save images of people naked? They were lying. A lawsuit by the Electronic Privacy Information Center sued the Department of Homeland Security for access to 2,000 copies of images from TSA body scanners.

Judge Ricardo Urbina ruled that the Homeland Security Department is not obliged to provide the images under the Freedom of Information Act because disclosure of the images may provide terrorists and other groups with higher ability to prevent detection by TSA and bring into aircraft prohibited materials.

I don't take the security issues lightly. However, I'm sure terrorists are aware that TSA uses machines that scan through clothing. Federal courts usually rule with the government on security issues. The ruling is not surprising. It does make me wonder why TSA is saving these pictures.

Rapiscan is one of the companies that makes the scanning machines for TSA. The CEO of Rapiscan is Deepak Chopra. It is a troubling potential conflict of interest when Chopra accompanies President Obama on a trip to India. On the trip, Obama announced a $1.7 billion deal between India and Boeing. The Wikileaks revealed the Obama administration has used legally shady behavior to secure contracts for Boeing.

Thom Hartman has a good commentary on how President Obama has blurred the line between lobbyists and government Hartman discusses Obama's India trip with Chopra.

Why Litbrit Right About Rules Mattering

I was perplexed by this Joy-Ann Reid post.

Liberals theoretically despise George W. Bush, but in reality, they want Barack Obama to BE George W. Bush — flouting the rules and flouting Congress, while liberal members of Congress appear to have been so trained by the Bush era to follow the White House’s lead, they desperately need Obama to tell them what to do, and to “fight” (ill-defined) before they’re willing or able to do their jobs.

Fellow PR blogger Litbrit has been a longtime fan of Barack Obama. That is until Obama floated the rules.

The last straw was not, as I thought most likely, the president's unnecessary caving in to the obstructionist Republican minority in Congress and extending the costly Bushian tax cuts for wealthy Americans. No, it was this nasty Wikileaks revelation--about the current White House administration's despicable sotto voce attempts to strong-arm certain more law-abiding (and probably more morally-upright) foreign governments and thus stymie war crimes investigations abroad--which sparked my own epiphany. I realized that despite my having passionately called for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney for their war crimes back in 2007 (great comment thread there at Ezra's old place, if you've got time), I was now at a point where I was allowing others--even some fellow lefties--to (nearly) convince me of how politically inexpedient, how inconvenient, and how costly-to-the-national-morale such war crimes investigations would be. And I was also--mistakenly (oh how mistaken I was!)--believing, all along, that President Obama would eventually turn his seemingly robust moral attentions to the ugly task of holding the criminals accountable. I could wait; it would happen. I was wrong. Jonathan Turley sums it up nicely:

Sadly, I was one of those people telling Litbrit impeachment would be a waste of political energy. I realize now how wrong I am.

Litbrit wants and expects the President to honor the "rules" we call international law. Litbrit blogged about another Wikileaks revelation. A June 24, 2009, a cable between US assistant ambassador Joseph Mussomeli and Afghan Interior Minister Hanif Atmar reveals private defense contractors (aka mercenaries) DynCorp used children for paid sexual services.

1. (C) SUMMARY: Assistant Ambassador Mussomeli discussed a range of issues with Minister of Interior (MoI) Hanif Atmar on June 23. On the Kunduz Regional Training Center (RTC) DynCorp event of April 11 (reftel), Atmar reiterated his insistence that the U.S. try to quash any news article on the incident or circulation of a video connected with it. He continued to predict that publicity would "endanger lives." He disclosed that he has arrested two Afghan police and nine other Afghans as part of an MoI investigation into Afghans who facilitated this crime of "purchasing a service from a child." He pressed for CSTC-A to be given full control over the police training program, including contractors. Mussomeli counseled that an overreaction by the Afghan goverment (GIRoA) would only increase chances for the greater publicity the MoI is trying to forestall.

The Guardian Reports the Obama administration got a Washington Post reporter to bury the story. What the Washington Post failed to report was young Afghan boys ages 8 to 15 years-old were sexually molested by two Afghan police officers and other men at a party thrown by DynCorp. The children are called Bacha boys. The boys wear make-up and women's clothes. They dance for men and are their sexual services are sold off to the highest bidder. Frontline did a story on the hidious practice.



Reid is wrong. Progressives are mad because policies like this hurt America. It is hard to cheer on Obama when his tax cut package will raise taxes on those making under $30,000. It is hard to believe that are foreign policy will become sane when the Obama administration cover up child rape. I wish Obama would have more respect for the rules and so does Litbrit.

Obama's State Dept. jokes about Osama but is serious about WikiLeaks

Guest post by Ron Brynaert

Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs Philip “P.J.” Crowley isn't playing around when it comes to WikiLeaks and Julian Assange.

At the Daily Beast, Howard Kurtz reports, "As Julian Assange steps up his rhetoric and his releases of sensitive material, the State Department is becoming increasingly undiplomatic."

With Julian Assange in jail, the State Department steps up its WikiLeaks counteroffensive. Howard Kurtz talks to State brass about his motive and why he should be considered dangerous.

As Julian Assange steps up his rhetoric and his releases of sensitive material, the State Department is becoming increasingly undiplomatic.

“Mr. Assange is not seemingly worried about real lives and real careers which can be put at risk of being intimidated, jailed or killed,” Assistant Secretary P.J. Crowley told The Daily Beast. His most recent statements “really unmasked him.”

Hours after WikiLeaks published a secret memo listing more than 100 factories, labs, and underseas cables that the United States considers critical for world security, Crowley said: “In releasing that kind of information, Mr. Assange is giving a group like al Qaeda a potential targeting list.”

All seriousness now, Mr. Crowley is not in a joke-telling mood.

Unfortunately, when the subject matter is al Qaeda mastermind Osama bin Laden, the State Department flack believes it's his duty to turn into Robin Williams (of the unfunny Patch Adams variety).

On March 29, 2010 at a State Dept. press conference a reporter and Crowley had the following exchange after President Obama made a surprise visit to Afghanistan:

QUESTION: I hope you have some Osama bin Laden soon.

MR. CROWLEY: Hmm?

QUESTION: I hope you have Osama bin Laden coming soon.

MR. CROWLEY: (Laughter.) We all hope for that day.

In May, Crowley's joking on bin Laden attracted a bit more attention.

AFP reported,

The US State Department, after hearing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad say Osama bin Laden was in Washington, joked Wednesday it found no trace of him despite a thorough search.

"We've done an intensive search here at the Department of State -- every nook and cranny, every rock -- and we can safely report that Osama bin Laden is not here," State Department spokesman Philip Crowley said.

"You mean Greater Washington, or you just looked at the State Department?" a reporter asked as he played along with the joke from Crowley, the spokesman for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

"Just the confines of the State Department, but it was reported by the president of Iran that he's here in Washington. That's news to us," Crowley said before turning to the news of the day.

"And thank you for laughing," he said, smiling broadly.

Just a few weeks ago, on November 16, Crowley again elicited laughs when asked about Osama bin Laden, although the transcript seems to be missing the punchline:

Q And -- but just to follow up, should we wait for later in the day? Because the second is that bin Laden is still at large because the U.S. Army has not caught him, you know. So --

MR. CROWLEY: I'm not sure. Is there a question there?

Q He says it is because we haven't caught him. Bin Laden is still out there.

(Cross talk.)

MR. CROWLEY: (Laughs.) That would be true. (Laughs.)

Q So is it -- how do you take it? Like is it that you know where he is and you are just letting him around?

Q (Tell us ?).

MR. CROWLEY: Look, we continue our hunt for and interest in capturing Mr. bin Laden.

The funny thing is, years ago, when Crowley worked for the progressive Center for American Progress, he was more serious about Osama bin Laden.

The blog Jihad Watch reported in June of 2007,

P.J. Crowley, a military analyst at the Center for American Progress and a former national security aide to President Clinton, said the Iraq war has diverted assets that could be used to find bin Laden.

"Now that he is in the tribal areas, I doubt that a bounty of any number will be helpful," Crowley said "Given tribal relationships, they will protect him."

But after being tapped to Obama's State Department in May of 2009, Crowley began to dismiss bin Laden's relevance.

From an Associated Press article in January shortly after the failed underwear bomb attempt,

State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said that while bin Laden remains a "catalyst" for terrorist activities by groups affiliated with his organization, there is no indication that he or his lieutenants have a direct hand in ordering attacks.

"They offer strategic guidance and rely on their affiliates to carry out that strategic guidance," Crowley said in an interview. The audio tape made public Sunday offers no evidence that bin Laden's relationship with affiliates such as al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, based in Yemen, has changed, Crowley said.

"He's trying to continue to appear relevant" by talking up an attempted attack by an affiliate, Crowley added.

This October 15, 2001 interview of Crowley, when he was vice president of the Insurance Information Institute, is very revealing in a post-WikiLeaks sense.

TERENCE SMITH: Colonel Crowley, Dr. Rice told reporters today that analysts were still studying the messages to see if there was any imbedded message to al-Qaida's followers in it but had not yet detected any. Do you feel it was a legitimate request to limit the exposure of these?

P.J. CROWLEY: I think it is unusual but not necessarily unprecedented. In every crisis there's always going to be times where the news media is in possession of information that, as you evaluate the national interest, it's better that they not broadcast right away or not broadcast at all. This is a little bit unusual in the nature of the delivery system where al-Qaida will pass a videotape to al Jazeera and then from there to the networks, but, you know, bin Laden is not the President of the United States. He should not be able to have unfettered access to our airwaves any time one of those tapes gets past.

I do agree with Bob that this is something where we need to have the administration make its case. If they have concerns that there are codes being passed, they need to be able to substantiate that. I also agree that over time these guys don't wear well. As we saw, for example, in the crisis in Kosovo, the more we heard from Slobodan Milosevic, the stronger the international resolve was to defeat him. I think that could be well the case in this instance, but I think early on where we have this kind of very strong emotion and unprecedented kind of situation caution is appropriate.

"It could well be that it's putting television at a slight reportorial disadvantage but television, on many occasions agrees to restrictions in return for access," Crowley said in October of 2001.