Coming February 6, 2024 . . .
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Pre-order at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
Coming February 6, 2024 . . . MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Pre-order at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
Exclusive: Official Washington still glorifies George W. Bush’s “successful surge” in Iraq while ignoring the wanton slaughter inflicted on Iraqis. So, there remains a high-level desire to harshly punish Pvt. Bradley Manning for exposing the horrific truth about that and other war crimes, writes ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern.
Comments
by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 06/03/2013 - 12:45pm
Apparently it was delivered February 10, 2004 as he was installed as a professor at Duke University
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 06/03/2013 - 10:54pm
McGovern makes things out to be more bleak than they are. The United States IS becoming less prone to violence; the polls show there is little support for new wars, and Obama passed up the chance to make war in Iran, Syria, and Mali. A majority of Americans want out of Afghanistan. In the second week of the Libyan adventure, public support was at only 52 percent. The mood in the country is not really "we do nothing but good".
by Aaron Carine on Mon, 06/03/2013 - 4:28pm
Good point.
If Manning had just released the Baghdad chopper massacre video this would be a much better case for him, and dicey for the gov't as the incident was clearly not defensible. The other 400,000 things he released are a very big problem for the defense.
by NCD on Mon, 06/03/2013 - 7:39pm
Manning definitely broke laws. He could not reveal the astounding depth and breadth of the conniving, lying, and war crimes that he had proof of without breaking one or more laws. If the fact of Manning breaking the law is all that matters, he has no defense. If in fact his actual guilt, in a bigger sense, could be determined by a mindless, soulless, computing machine which was fed nothing but the pertinent law and the narrow facts of his actions within the scope of that law, then he has no defense. If blind adherence to arbitrary man-made laws which are being murderously abused and are dismissive of conscience is considered to be more important than recognizing the brave act of risking everything for a greater good, and again, if the factually correct charge that he broke the law is all that matters, then thing are actually even more bleak than McGovern suggests, IMO.
by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 06/03/2013 - 10:13pm
If the bishop made that statement right after 9/11, then it was objectionable. He should have been attacking the perpetrators, not the victim.
by Aaron Carine on Mon, 06/03/2013 - 9:48pm
I don't know either how soon after 9/11 the Bishop made his statement. He is probably not so insensitive as to have made it on 9/12 when people were scared and mad and confused and feeling vengeful. At some later point in time, maybe when a bit of studious introspection is due, if not long overdue, it becomes an incitefull look at us from without, IMO.
by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 06/03/2013 - 10:21pm
Before the Manning case, I really didn't know about the provisions of the Espionage Act. I used to criticize Britain for the Official Secrets Act, but this isn't that much better. It's especially distressing that he is being charged with "aiding the enemy". Because terrorists can read Wikileaks? That is how it is in a free society; anyone can read stuff published by the media, and that is how it should be.
by Aaron Carine on Tue, 06/04/2013 - 5:50am
Aaron,
I don't understand your distress at all. Why would it be a stretch to hold a defendant in the capacity of a Manning accountable if he or she gives confidential top secret information to a Wikileaks, and then that Wikileaks turns around and places it in the public domain for anyone, including al qaeda, as the Guardian article AA has submitted above reflects is part of the government's case? Free speech is not the issue; the issue is whether Manning violated the law, and the law does not allow one in Manning's shoes, or so I understand, to release information to anyone, even to his or her mom or bff.
The point is, clearly I think, that military personnel with access to confidential information must comply with their obligations not to disclose that information to anyone, and if they choose not to comply, even for reasons of morality however just, then they should be prepared to suffer the consequences.
But I really do think we should focus on the evidence that is presented to really understand what is happening here.
by Bruce Levine on Tue, 06/04/2013 - 9:08am