David Seaton's picture

    The travails of Pfc Bradely Manning

    By David Seaton on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 1:40pm |
    We are living is rather surreal times, so it is normal that a conversation like this one about Pfc Manning can have a dream-like quality of disassociation at times. I think I first realized how totally wacky our world had become, when after 9-11 Dubya said that America's reaction to the attack should be to go out shopping. The Manning conversation is moving in that direction.

     

    When we talk about Private Manning (or anyone else wearing the uniform of the US armed forces) we are talking about a member of a collective that is at this moment engaged in two wars. Members of this group, wearing the same uniform as Manning are regularly getting killed and maimed. You might say that this is all deadly serious for this particular collective, group or "family". What has been leaked appears to be State Department material, but it could easily include the order of battle of US forces. From a military point of view, this is all  "code red", heads must roll, serious. For the army the most important thing now is to find out if this is just an isolated individual acting alone and make sure it never happens again.

     

    There is plenty of room to discuss the role of Julian Assange, myself I think he's a messianic scumbag, but most of my friends think he is a hero, like I say, plenty of room for discussion. But Private Manning is either a poor, innocent, chump, who has been skillfully manipulated by Assange, or if not he is person who has betrayed the trust of his comrades and anyone who volunteers to join the army must know that carries a price.

     

    There seems to be some confusion about military discipline. My late father was a US Army officer for over twelve years, with service in field artillery and the Corp of Engineers, and as he colorfully explained it to me once, this is how the military operates, "Cap'n stubs his toe, hollers 'SHIT!', whole company squats and sounds off back, "WHAT COLOR... SIR!!"  Soldiers are supposed to follow orders, fall on grenades, take machine gun nests, sit on bayonets, peel potatoes  and clean latrines with their toothbrushes, not have opinions, that is what soldering is about. If you think differently, you've probably seen "Judgment at Nuremberg" too many times.

     

    I don't defend injustice, but the justice of the military is different from civilian justice, just as military music is different from normal music. The first thing to remember about soldiers, even though it sounds dramatic, is that they are expected to actually die as part of their job description. The first loyalty is to the group, because those are the people that have got your back... to let them down, to put them in any kind of unnecessary danger is a cardinal sin. Loyalty and honor are a fetish, with death around. The mentality is so different from the civilian mentality that there is always tension between them. Manning should never have been allowed in the army in the first place, I don't think he ever understood where he was... maybe now, when it is too late, he is getting the idea.

     

    Reading more about him, I think it would be an understatement to say that he wasn't military material, that he was as cut out for army life as Ewan McGregor's character in "I love you Phillip Morris". However,  Pfc Manning volunteered to serve, he wasn't drafted against his will, he took an oath, he knew that what he was doing was a serious breech of military discipline. I would think the only possible defense he could have would be temporary insanity. I feel sorry for him, but there are people I feel much more sorry for, like, for instance,  another Pfc, the late Erin L. McLyman. Somehow I don't think Erin would have cut Bradley much slack.

    Crossposted from: http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/

    Comments

    "What has been leaked appears to be State Department material, but it could easily include the order of battle of US forces." 

    Well, what's wrong with tormenting someone for what they might have done? 

    If you have to ask, further discussion is useless. 

    Seems to me there is this heartbreaking situation of Erin L. McLyman's death and a whipping boy to torture to ease our pain, and that's about it. 


    by Gregor Zap on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 1:49pm

    Remember military justice is like military music or military intelligence... not that just, not that musical and not that smart. The army is not interested in doing "justice", they want Manning to tell them everything... everything. He belongs to them... he signed that when he signed up.


    by David Seaton on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 3:08pm

    What has been leaked appears to be State Department material, but it could easily include the order of battle of US forces.

    Get it straight David. The case is not just about the State Dept. cables, he was arrested in May and charged in July (long before the State cables were published).

    The charges included unauthorized access to Secret Internet Protocol Router Network computers, download of more than 150,000 United States Department of State diplomatic cables, download of a classified Power Point presentation, and downloading a classified video of a military operation in Baghdad on July 12, 2007. Manning is also charged with forwarding the video and at least one of the cables to an unauthorized person.[19] The maximum jail sentence is 52 years.[1]

    Manning faces a pretrial hearing[20] under Article 32 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, following which his lawyer expects a court-martial in the spring of 2011.[11][1]

    Wikileaks have refused to identify Manning as the source of the leaks, but claim that their effort to arrange for Manning's legal defense was rebuffed, a claim the military has denied.[6][21][22][1] As of December 8, 2010, Wikileaks had not yet followed through on a pledge to contribute to Manning's legal defense.[23]

    Manning has selected former military attorney David Coombs to lead his defense team.[24]

    Also I include the paragraph about the maximum sentence because I recall in the past you saying something about Assange probably spending life in prison if  not lethal injection. Well, if an actual army intel leaker of this kind of info. faces a max of 52 years from a military court, not life, I can't see how a publisher of leaks, who is not a U.S. citizen to boot, and is aligned with major international news organizations, even if proven to be in conspiracy with the leaker, faces life from a civilian court. (Mho, he mainly faces continual legal hounding, forever and a day.)

    And I include the paragraph about Wikileaks as to me it doesn't suggest abandonment or selfishness, rather it suggests that on more considered thought (after legal advice,) a desire to distance themselves from him for both parties good as far as court cases are concerned--i.e., the less proof of a relationship, the better for both.

    For others who are discussing the lack of a trial, note there are two footnotes for the point that his own lawyer expects a court martial in spring--he couldn't have gotten that out of thin air.



    by artappraiser on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 2:34pm

    Pfc. Manning's current situation and alleged deprivations have been poorly documented, as one would expect when matters of military justice intersect with matters of espionage and/or national security. When leaking secrets is the essential crime, one cannot expect that much about  Pfc. Manning would be voluntarily made public.

    His incarceration does not seem overly long at this point, at least not in comparison to similar cases in the past and given the stakes in the government's ongoing investigation. Nonetheless, it will be a good thing if his trial occurs soon. No one should languish in jail too long without a trial.

    I am not particularly moved that his bed doesn't have sheets, as that is the case in most jails today. Our justice system, both in the civilian and military versions, is sorely lacking in many ways. Pfc. Manning has a lot of company in other jails. His treatment falls within the parameters of the system he volunteered for.


    by Hey Wally on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 3:20pm

    I have been reading about this and I am at a loss.

    I mean is this supposed to have something to do with a slogan:

    LOOSE LIPS SINK SHIPS?

    And now we are just supposed to assume that things like speedy trials, and prohibitions against torture are all out the window?

    I do not understand this.


    by Richard Day on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 3:52pm

    Speedy trials are not the norm in either the civilian or military court systems.

    What some here call torture falls severely short of the mark and diminishes the gravity of the word when used so cavalierly.


    by Hey Wally on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 4:17pm

    Richard, is it just me or does Wally seem like a John Yoo/Alberto Gonzales understudy, a DOJ troll working for AG Holder, or is he just a simple guy totally content with what has gone down the last decade or so....

    Wally: Speedy trials are not the norm...His incarceration does not seem overly long at this point......His treatment falls within the parameters of the system...What some here call torture falls severely short of the mark.....


    by NCD on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 5:43pm

    Ooh ee ooh ah ah, ting tang, Wally Wally Bing Bang.


    by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 5:47pm

    I cast my vote for "All of the Above".  Wally has some serious empathy deficit; give him a Jack Bauer scenario, then ask him some of those questions we all know sooooo well.

    Wish this weren't a family blog site, or I'd tell Wally to get stuffed.


    by we are stardust on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 5:54pm

    Quit bitching. A free and open internet doesn't mean doodly without dissenting opinions. I don't disagree with your sympathies and I'm no Jack Bauer. I just question your facts and the bogus conclusions based on them. Your recent ode to Bradley offered no links, not one source for the statements of fact you asserted. Let alone any credible sources.

    But I'll defend your right to be a knee-jerk anti-government progressive, as distinguished from a liberal who believes a government and a nation are only as good as their people.

    All I ask is more realism and less whining about which you obviously have no clue.


    by Hey Wally on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 6:07pm

    I am sooo sorry for bitching; I was indeed having a little fun at your expense.  But, on the other hand, you did call me an anarchist, which kinda opened you up to some ribbing, IMO.  We do sometimes expect a person to have done some reading around the web before commenting so vociferoulsy, but I admit, there are others here who only seem to read here, or one or two other news-aggregator sites.

    This is one compilation of Manning stories; do take note that in the UK, the leaks and players are treated like news, not the scandal you and a few others like to see it all.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/bradley-manning

    But you're right: I do have a tendency to believe certain bloggers whom I trust to report the story right; and I do totally believe this is happening, and was reported back in July, as were the charges against Manning, which Artie found, and my lesser skills found: in a footnote on Manning's wiki page!

    We are far beyond the place in which our government is 'only as good as our people', unless you believe that each corporation's wallets count as 'the people'.  Feh!


    by we are stardust on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 6:23pm

    We are far beyond the place in which our government is 'only as good as our people', unless you believe that each corporation's wallets count as 'the people'.  Feh!

    I understand the sentiment. I would only add that the American people, who voted in droves for Republicans just last month, seem little if any better than our government.


    by Hey Wally on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 6:32pm

    I think it was clear that they were the ones motivated to get out and vote.  I regret more Dems didn't, but they weren't apparently inspired to, and it seemed (though others may know better) that they were pretty mad at this President, and questioned mightily the policies he and the Dems passed vs. the way they could have/should have been.  And a whale of a lot of that was courting the Banks over working people. 

    He and the corporate Dems (a long list) have really screwed up, and we will pay for it for a long time, and then they will pay for it in 2012.


    by we are stardust on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 7:02pm

    Yeah, the president and Dems didn't regulate Wall Street enough so lets give more power to those who are open about their desire to deregulate Wall Steet.  Brilliant.


    by Elusive Trope on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 7:51pm

    Please.  Are you purposely misreading me and the voters?  Pissed Dems stay home.  Motivated voters get out.  Who are they?  Ones who buy the distorted messages.  Call them ignorant, deluded, I will too.  Are they pissed about TARP?  Do they buy the message fears about the deficit and national debt without grasping there are two entirely different sorts of debt? 

    Hell, yeah.  But the Dems in power punt like they did on this tax cut bill.  They lie about it all, even Pelosi.  They fail to explain because they really don't want to tell the truth about the economy, the raiding of SS in the tax package, The Dems arranged a theatrical vote and debate so they could be on record supporting some measly increase in the estate package; everyone knew it was pure theater, but figured it might help in 2012; then they voted for the bill.  And you think I'm cynical?


    by we are stardust on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 9:03pm

    Where I come from a citizen votes.  A citizen gets involved in the primary election, and then accepts the majority's choice for their party, and votes for their party candidate.  Don't like weho got choosen, then work harder in the following years to change that.  Or join a third party.  The wealthy elites who control the system pray to their little dollar gods that the people will make their decision whether to vote or not based on whether they are "motivated." 

    Where I come from a citizen knows enough about the political system to understand the dynamics.  So much of what has happened over the past two years is summed up with the repeal of DADT. Unless some Republicans break party lines, it is doomed.  But that kind of subtle nuance to the "game" of DC is lost on most voters.

    In his article Who's Dumb, Really?, Charles Blow points to a poll that showed only 71% of Democrats knew that their party controled Congress and only 62% Joe Biden was Vice-President (82% and 65% of Republicans knew the answers repsectively).  It is hard to image someone who doesn't know Biden is VP having an opinion (let alone an informed one) on TARP. 

    So let's put aside our romanticizing of the People, and see them for what they are in all of their glory and the not-so-gloriousm facets.  Regardless of what one thinks about what the Dems did over the last two years, it is pretty easy to conclude that the People would be better off (no matter how ever so slightly) if there was going to be 65 Democrats in the Senate in the new year and Boehner was still leading the minority party in the House.

    And maybe in 2012, people won't sit around waiting to be motivated to get involved.  I won't hold my breath.


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 9:33am

    I wish more people knew more, too.  The percentage who can't point to the US on a world map isn't very high.  ;o) 

    You live in Indiana, don't you?  The county with the highest voter turnout for the midterms was 55%; not too shabby, actually. 

    http://www.in.gov/sos/elections/files/2010_General_Election_Turnout_Data(1).pdf


    by we are stardust on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 10:20am

    Yeah, and in my district we enthusiastically sent Pence back for another two years. Superduper!!!! In a moment of moral confusion, in 2008 my country voted for Obama and Pence.  Go figure. 


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 10:47am

    NEWS FLASH

    DOJ spins Manning coverage in blogosphere with billion-dollar slush fund for boiler-room bloggers

    • Lex Luthor takes over Daily Planet

    • Evil Queen says Snow White threatens Big Apple

    • Wally thinks Lulu has own name problem

     


    by Hey Wally on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 5:58pm

    Wally thinks? I'll need to see some evidence.Maybe a link.


    by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 6:12pm

    I will not return your ad hominem attack.

    I will suggest you try making a rational argument that does not rely on "Wally is [fill in the blank]."


    by Hey Wally on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 6:19pm

    Is your comment above that starts with "News Flash" an example of rational arguement that I should emulate?


    by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 6:50pm

    Sarcasm can advance an argument far better than an ad hominem.


    by Hey Wally on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 7:02pm

    Normally I might agree, but when the target of the sarcasm thinks it is ad hominem  it hardly seems worth the effort.


    by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 7:15pm

    Normally I might agree, but when the target of the sarcasm thinks it is ad hominem  it hardly seems worth the effort.

    What is it that you don't understand about the term "ad hominem?" Using a person as "the target" of a non-material attack IS an ad hominem.


    by Hey Wally on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 7:53pm

     You might categorize "Wally Thinks?" any way you care to and you can give it a weighty Italian phrase for style points, but when I said what I said I was feeling sarcastic and I meant what I said as sarcasm. You can take it any way you want to.
     Now, you may respond to this comment with another outstanding example of rational argument, [That is sarcasm too] or any other damned way you want, and I will be happy for you to have the last word on this heady topic which began with me saying "Wally Wally Bing Bang" and then "Wally Thinks?" and you shooting right back with your suggestion that I have my own name problem. Heavy stuff all around.
     I usually avoid this kind of silly shit. I'll try harder in the future but like life its own self, there aint no guarantees.


    by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 8:19pm

    If you don't like silly shit, don't start a "heady topic which began with me saying 'Wally Wally Bing Bang' and then 'Wally Thinks?'"


    by Hey Wally on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 8:40pm

    touchy aren't we?


    by Beetlejuice on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 1:11am

    Oh, jeez, Beetlemeister, aren't we all??  But at least you have a tickle fairy to tickle you.  The rest of us?  Oy.

    BTW, the guys in Chat tonight told me my name should be Oyster.  At first I felt honored, thinking that perhaps they felt that I offer up pearls of wisdom or somesuch.  Then I realized it's simply because I say "Oy" too much. 

    Oy.


    by LisB on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 1:18am

    Private Manning is either a poor, innocent, chump, who has been skillfully manipulated by Assange, or if not he is person who has betrayed the trust of his comrades and anyone who volunteers to join the army must know that carries a price.

    Why not both?

    Jon Stewart had a segment about Manning when his leaks first hit the news. It was actually mostly funny.  Manning used the screen name Bradass87 to contact Wikileaks and identified himself as in Army Intelligence. That just screams CHUMP.

    Also, despite the oxymoron, you would think someone in military intelligence is at least bright enough to know that they are at the least their assignment.

    It is really difficult to sympathize with him. 

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-july-27-2010/best-leak-ever


    by EmmaZahn on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 6:35pm

    Thus ends any possiblility that Jon Stewart is worth listening to any longer.  That's some news-shaping there, Jon.


    by we are stardust on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 7:05pm

    Welcome to the all-volunteer military. That Manning might not be a good fit for the military has been noted for a large number of military members since it was implemented in the late 70's. However, they are the only one's volunteering so what's a military to do? Reinstate the draft? At least the draft had the advantage of drawing in people better suited for the rigors of a bivouac in the boonies, however, it would be an election killer if a standing politician tried to do it.


    by Beetlejuice on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 1:09am

    Wally baby, love ya, thanks for keeping things humming here.Cool


    by David Seaton on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 10:22am

    David, you keep repeating over and over all this "Booyah!" nonsense in addressing the Bradley Manning story as if repetition will at last make it relevant to the issue.

    It really doesn't matter at all what opinion we might have about Manning and his actions.

    It really doesn't matter at all what kind of differences there might be between real justice and military justice.

    It really doesn't matter at all if your father saw his military service as an opportunity to fully surrender all sense of ethics and personal responsibility to become a lean, mean killing machine for the state.

    None of what you continually write about on this subject matters. It. Really. Doesn't. Matter.

    What DOES matter is the fact that a citizen of these United States has been locked away by the state beyond the reach of the Rule of Law. What DOES matter is that it appears this same individual is held in conditions that are commonly defined as torturous by all manner of authorities on the subject. What DOES matter is that we are prevented by the state from knowing the status and the particulars of the arrest and detention of this individual.

    Habeus Corpus and an assumption of innocence until proven guilty are not just guidelines to be implemented whenever deigned convenient by the state. They are critically important protections guaranteed to us all as a means of limiting the power of the state to abuse its authority.

    Torturing of an individual - in any measure and for ANY reason - used to be considered wholly inconsistent with anything we would recognize as the acceptable practice of a responsible government. Jack Bauer is fiction. In the real world, WE DO NOT SANCTION TORTURE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE. It is simply inconsistent with everything we've ever believed as a people who established this Republic as a government ruled by "We, the People." And nowhere in the Declaration of Independence, the Preamble to our Constitution, or within the Constitution itself, can you find anything that supports the state's actions in apparently sending this person to a gulag without benefit of the Rule of Law. Everything about it flies in the face of our culture and our Constitution.

    Your continued effort to defend this action tells me that the culture might be changing. That scares me. But I know the Constitution still reigns supreme against those times the culture goes a little mad. I insist now that it be applied in this case, with threat that whosoever stands in its way after having sworn an oath to "uphold and defend" it should face the consequences of failing to do so. 


    by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 11:43am

    By law we don't torture; by SCOTUS decision, habeas corpus is the law in military trials. Now it may be the law isn't always followed, but that's where appeals and writs to the courts come in.

    Anyway, here's a festive song in honor of the WWII soldiers I love:

     


    by we are stardust on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 12:08pm

    I love the choreography. These dames are swell! Wink


    by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 12:12pm

    Some gams on 'em, yeah?  Tongue out


    by we are stardust on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 12:19pm

    http://news.antiwar.com/2010/12/17/us-offering-manning-deal-to-testify-a...


    by A Guy Called LULU on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 12:09pm

    "Sources say that the administration has yet to determine exactly what sort of plea bargain it is planning to offer Manning for incriminating Assange, but the bidding may well begin with a pillow and sheets, both of which Manning has been barred from having in detention. Amid reports of his deteriorating health, it remains to be seen how the administration may be able to coerce him into cutting a deal."

    And maybe a few push-ups allowed in his cell?


    by we are stardust on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 12:13pm

    Makes you want to just jump right up and sing "Proud to be an American!" eh?


    by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 12:15pm

    My country tis of thee...sweet land of Liberty.  Makes me cry.  Couldn't post the Aretha version.

     


    by we are stardust on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 12:26pm

    Are you guys nuckin futz? Jails don't issue sheets or pillows for two simple reasons that have nothing to do with torture: the potential for suicide by hanging or asphyxiation and the expense of maintaining laundry facilities for the incarcerated. Jails are not Hiltons where the maids routinely fluff up the Eve St. Laurent pillows and change the Egyptian-cotton sheets daily.


    by Hey Wally on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 2:51pm

    Hey, Wally!

    Pretty transparent effort here to avoid discussing the indefensible conditions under which Manning is presently being held by thumping your chest and bellowing a strawman argument.

    Purposefully depriving a prisoner of any exercise is only one such condition that cannot be reasonably defended for ANY prisoner under ANY circumstance. It is established that the conditions - as described - are deliberately torturous, and all your cute indignation about Eve St. Laurent bed linens, etc., cannot disguise the facts here.

    I expect these kinds of arguments from the Roger Ailes' and the Dick Armeys of the world. But I gotta tell you, they aren't welcome here.


    by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 3:09pm

    Wow.

    Any doubters should follow through to the link to the original story at The Independent.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/freed-on-bail-ndash-but...

    Kim Sengupta and David Osborne are quite experienced reporters on the international beat and The Independent is pretty centrist overall, so it's not like this info. has slant from antiwar.com.

    This is particularly interesting and unsual:

    American officials view persuading Pte Manning to give evidence that Mr Assange encouraged him to disseminate classified Pentagon and State Department files as crucial to any prospect of extraditing him for a successful prosecution. To facilitate that, Pte Manning may be moved from military to civilian custody, they say.


    by artappraiser on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 12:22pm

    Moved? From military to civilian custody?

    The obvious question is: Will that be before or after they "get his mind right?"


    by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 1:03pm

    "Before, or after, getting his mind 'right'?"

    Good question. One would think that a young soldier would be encouraged to exercise as much as he wants to, to keep his mind and his body fit -- a far more tried and true health regimen that pumping him full of volatile drugs. Unless, of course, the right mind they have in mind has nothing  to do with fitness, but rather, fits the cynical standard -- an inside joke beloved by those who work at the NYT -- of "all the news that's fit to print".... as in what fits the format.


    by wws on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 3:27pm

    "Wow.
    Any doubters should follow through to the link to the original story at The Independent."

    Doubters of what? I do not know what you mean by that statement nor what you think we should take from your quote below.

    "American officials view persuading Pte Manning to give evidence that Mr Assange encouraged him to disseminate classified Pentagon and State Department files as crucial to any prospect of extraditing him for a successful prosecution. To facilitate that, Pte Manning may be moved from military to civilian custody, they say."

    I added bolding as part of my speculative take on it. Private 1st Class Manning has been shown for seven months that the government can make life very miserable for him. They have no doubt already tried to get testimony from him. Heat is being put on them as knowledge of their treatment of Manning is starting to make news. Time is of the essence. 
     So, time for a new tactic that plays off the old one. Lighten up, show him how much better things can be if he gets a few years of incarceration under humane conditions rather than the fifty years in the hole that he can expect if he continues to be uncooperative. Send in the good cop. Use the smart interrogation methods we heard about during the discussions about waterboarding.

     The U.S wants Assange badly and and officials have stated that to facilitate getting him with any pretense of legality it is crucial that they persuade Manning to testify along specific lines.

     I think it is clear that they will do anything to or with Manning that they can get away with to facilitate accomplishing their greater purpose.


    by A Guy Called LULU on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 1:10pm

    I just meant those who might doubt the antiwar.com source.on the story.


    by artappraiser on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 1:29pm

    Thaks, I see that now.


    by A Guy Called LULU on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 1:31pm

    Latest Comments