Barack Obama. What a dick.
Amen. But Crowley clearly got the better of the exchange, and firing him is a screwup. I think on the whole this is good news for Manning. (Of course it doesn't change the underlying issue, corrupt deployment of coercive power. We're stuck with that)
"According to a DoD memo, I am in fact a dick. I concur with their assessment and will not bother them further." -Barack Obama.
Amusingly enough, "counterproductive", "stupid" and "ridiculous" is exactly the sort of morally neutral criticism Obama gave of the Iraq war and Guantanamo Bay. "A strategic mistake" that "harms our national interest", not an immoral and bloodthirsty crusade that robbed hundreds of thousands of people of their lives and drove many in captivity to insanity and suicide.I think, I THINK... Obama just fired himself of 3 years past.
Why is Obama a dick for this particular act? What is he supposed to say after Crowley gets out in front of him like that? "I agree with the unauthorized public statement of my underling, which he was given several opportunities to retract, and I consent to the principle that if bureaucrats lose internal arguments within my administration, they can simply conduct their own press campaigns and try to get the decision overturned, with no professional consequences."The treatment of Manning is obscene. Obama's apparent deference to the military on this is pathetic. But firing Crowley was completely defensible. Crowley should want to step down in the same way that Manning should want to get arrested. That's civil disobedience (or in this case hierarchical defiance).
Why should Manning want to get arrested? His disobedience was whistle-blowing. It's not the same as, say, chaining himself to a recruitment center as an act of protest. And why should Crowley resign?Quaint idea that civil disobedience is more authentic the more the state grinds it's practitioners down, but I hardly see how it's more practically effective. And isn't effectiveness the yardstick?Firing Crowley is defensible if you're an asswipe. Public officials are allowed to disagree with other public officials and Obama in particular has said how he specifically does not want an amen chorus.
I think on the whole this is good news for Manning.I disagree. I think Obama is demonstrating his ruthlessness in dealing with Manning and Wikileaks. The intent is to create examples and spread fear accordingly. The base will stick with him throughout, some more grudgingly than others, and he knows it.
Manning isn't a frigging whistleblower! He was trying to overturn the entire edifice of state secrets. If he wasn't expecting to get caught he was truly out of his element, and in fact I believe he secured a commitment from Assange that wikileaks would supply counsel.Likewise, the fact of Obama not wanting an amen chorus for the purposes of internal deliberations doesn't have any bearing on public acts of insubordination. Firing Crowley is only defensible to asswipes if you're about fourteen years old.
Anonymice, can you give yourselves some sort of unique id? I'm losing the thread here
I disagree. I think Obama is demonstrating his ruthlessness in dealing with Manning and WikileaksSadly there are those who still think Super BarryO is giving those evil Rethuglicans just enough rope to hang themselves.If he wasn't expecting to get caught he was truly out of his element, and in fact I believe he secured a commitment from Assange that wikileaks would supply counsel.I think the two ideas there are somewhat inconsistent. If you are Manning and you make the decision to do what he did, you're going to want to get your own counsel who not only is empathetic and sympathetic to WikiLeaks/Assange, but has your own interests first and foremost. I'm not sure Assange and Manning have the same interests here, and if I were counseling Manning I'd suggest they are not.Now if he was truly out of his element and sandbagged by this development (which would have been quite obvious to me but I'm twice Manning's age), he probably wouldn't have the presence of mind to secure counsel from Assange or anyone else -- he'd likely assume he'd get counsel appointed by someone somewhere.
I believe he secured a commitment from Assange that wikileaks would supply counsel.I think you believe wrong. Manning was ratted out by a sociopath to whom he foolishly confessed in a web chat. That sociopath and the magazine for whom he was working, Wired, may have been working for the Feds. At least that's the story so far. Whether or not Manning is a 'mere whistleblower' and someone overturning the edifice of state secrets (which is still whistleblowing though on a grand scale) does not address your original claim (assuming it was you) that he should 'want' to get arrested. Now you're saying he should have known it would happen. In other words, you're talking shit. Manning may have well gotten away with it were it not for Wired magazine and Adrian Lamo,Fine if the ends Obama seeks necessitate his torturing Manning and firing Crowley, but that doesn't contradict IOZ's claim -- that he's asshole, a dick, and a blood-driven monster.
Dick or rod or johnson.
barak obama's is now the face of the bloody mawed monster of my nightmares.surely Manning knew that there would be legal consequences if he were to get caught. prolly wasn't counting on being tormented, tortured, for months upon months prior to being indicted (or whatever they term it in the military system.)
No he wasn't a whistleblower you fucktard. He was an individual confronted with abject evil and did the only thing he thought would change it. He is a person with moral integrity, he said no I will not cooperate with this system that I have learned is horrendous. He is a hero. He's not fucking Ghandi. He doesn't adhere to some sort of dogma that instructs him that his suffering is erecting as far as I know. He was just a guy confronted with an internal decision. He made the most noble of choices. He should be rewarded with soft pillows and sumptuous feasts.
Erecting = Edifying
If you see something, say something:White House Switchboard: 202-456-1414White House comments line after hours: 202-456-1111
I think you mean "an hero," demize!.
Crowley should want to step down in the same way that Manning should want to get arrestedAnd in the same way I should want to hit my testicles with a sledgehammer. I may not like it, but The Law Is The Law, and if someone with a badge or a gun or a bigger paycheck tells me to do it, well, fuck, them's the rules!
See the Black Sun Rise
Manning should want to get arrested. That's civil disobedienceNo... that's sicko fetishism. Bradley Manning should be unable to climax unless his partner is dressed as Jörg Weisshaupt, Wolfhound of the SS!
"No, Obama, you're not wrong, you're just an asshole." -shorter Anonymous@4:16
I kind of hope to one day be fired for saying that torture is wrong. I think that'd look good on a resume.Hahaha, just kidding. It wouldn't.
Biggus Dickus ever!
Okay geniuses.1) Foxtrot. "In fact I believe that" is contrastive in this sentence, i.e. he was prepared for the eventuality that he would get caught and not "completely out of his element." My recollection is that there was an agreement that wikileaks would pay for counsel (not choose it) in the event Manning was arrested, which was mooted when all of their accounts got frozen.2) Anon 5:04. The point of the whistleblower statute is that it's intended to preserve the edifice of the state, to save it from corruption. That's not what Manning was up to. So you can either look at his act as pure sabotage or a statement of principle, and to be principled you have to do it under your own name, and to do it under your own name you have to get busted. Since he did have discussions with Assange about paying for legal defense, he clearly recognized that possibility and was prepared for it at some level-- whether he wanted it to happen will have to wait for the memoir. I think that personifying the leak in Bradley Manning has been a considerably more effective way of getting people to think about the issues involved than an anonymous act would have done, so to the extent that he did it with full knowledge of the likely consequences it is an even more impressive act of heroism.3) Demize! Fucktard that I am I agree with you in all respects.
Oh, and Rowan correctly prses my comment.
Remember during the 2008 campaign when Obama was always seen reading books like *The Giving Tree* or something and it made you think, "wow, heez going to be specialz."
So, do "liberals" still support this guy? It seems like he's losing their support in a very slow trickle.
Whaddya gonna do, vote republican?
No, I'm gonna not vote. It doesn't make a difference anyway. Fuck all of 'em.
In the words of Mike Meyer, a man who's seen some shit and hasn't given up yet, "Third party, folks."
to be principled you must do it under your own nameThat's just pure horseshit. Manning has no obligation to be a martyr and saying it repeatedly doesn't prove it. It would have been much better if he had not been caught: first, because he does not deserve to be punished and second, because his punishment has a chilling effect on others who might otherwise be inspired to do similar things. It seems to me that those who say he would have eventually been caught regardless of Lamo are talking out of their asses. Also the next time someone insists that Assange promised legal support, I would a reliable source. Lamo doesn't count. Btw even if Manning sought a pledge of legal support, it does not mean he intended or expected to get caught. It only means awareness of the risk.Also, while I see zero significance in whether or not Manning's actions qualify as 'whistleblowing', it is clear from his chats with the odious Lamo that that is exactly how he saw them. I would also appreciate the source of your claim
Lotta dudes, or possibly only one anonymous dude awfully convinced that Manning wanted to get caught when you do not, in fact, know that he was the leaker at all.
It's comical (albeit tragic for Manning) that while Obama has responded to such crises as the attacks on his health care and stimulus plans, the 2010 elections, Egypt et al, Wisconsin, etc by hiding out and not responding, the one crisis he's shown some gusto to respond to is Wikileaks--a self-referential crisis that exists mostly by virtue of the state responding to it (the American media absolutely lived up to its role of burying the more interesting revelations). Very Brezhnev era period of stagnation vibe.
“I have actually asked the Pentagon whether or not the procedures that have been taken in terms of his confinement are appropriate and are meeting our basic standards,” Obama said. “They assured me that they are.”
True, IOZ. Everything we know comes from a very unreliable source. However, even if Manning is the leaker, it would make no sense to use Wikileaks as the conduit if he expected to get caught. Nonny-who-thinks-Manning-should-suffer is full of shit across the board.
I am curious, IOZ: If Manning is not the leaker, then what is the role of Wired Magazine in this? Are the chat logs where Manning discloses theft of the cables fake?
Hey guys, I just got off the phone with the Pentagon and they assured me that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was justified and proper. In case you were wondering. Peace out!
Can't find the original source of claim, but this follow-up has some of the same information: "WikiLeaks delivers contribution to Bradley Manning defence fund" (Guardian Jan 13).
And here is an article from four days after Manning's arrest was announced:Wikileaks Commissions Lawyers to Defend Alleged Army Source (Wired, June 11).
Nonny at 12:47 and 12:57 - You're shooting blanks. An offer of legal support that came after Manning was nabbed doesn't prove that any such support was pledged before Manning did the deed. Besides, as I already said, even if he had secured such a pledge, it does not signify intent on Manning's part to make himself the martyr you, weirdly, would prefer him to be.
Third parties? Those are the ones that don't need to be taken seriously, right?
"I think that personifying the leak in Bradley Manning has been a considerably more effective way of getting people to think about the issues involved than an anonymous act would have done, so to the extent that he did it with full knowledge of the likely consequences it is an even more impressive act of heroism."Martyrs make the cause. Anonymous leakers don't. Sorry.I agree that these two articles don't prove any prior arrangement, I merely thought they were suggestive and included them in the interests of an honest discussion. What I am remembering is a long feature on Wikileaks (in The New Yorker?) where other principals of the organization besides Assange discussed interactions with leakers, including Manning (who had by then been charged), and the question of legal defense. Since establishing a prior conspiracy between Manning and Assange it exactly what the U.S. would like to do so that they can extradite him from Sweden, I'm not surprised that there's nothing out there now on contacts before Manning's arrest. I think such collusion may be a reasonable inference. But yes, the issue is Manning's own state of mind, and as I said he was either naive, or prepared for a tough fight. I myself would rather fall into martyrdom with both eyes open, I think that is an admirable act if the cause is just. If I had access to the horrifying information that he did, I hope I would do the same. It is bigger than one massacre by helicopter. The question is whether such acts will go forward with impunity or whether someone will step forward to offer a personal challenge. Intentionally or not, Manning did so. I don't think he or anyone is serve by your efforts to cast him as a victim rather than a protagonist.
I will not play with Obama's erector set.
The set Obama is playing with does not belong to him, he was hired to do the erection and it looms over all of us. Go ahead and play house if you want, but that doesn't change anything.
The mass leaks of the main govt classified databases stopped after Manning was arrested.So either1) Manning was the leaker of the Iraq&Afghanistan warlogs and the diplomatic cablesor 2) a) Manning was one of the leakers along with one or more someone else or orb) It's one or more someone else entirelyandthat one or more someone else is keeping the yap shut.If there is someone else that's keeping the yap shut, is *(s)he* a hero?
In that scenario I'd admire their act. But: "I think that personifying the leak in Bradley Manning has been a considerably more effective way of getting people to think about the issues involved than an anonymous act would have done."
not feeling the "...personifying the leak in Bradley Manning has been a considerably more effective way of getting people to think about the issues..."hard evidence, the helicopter video especially, kinda speaks for itself doesn't it? regardless of who released it. "personifying the leaks" is just a means to divert the conversation away from the evidence exposed so the media can instead focus on the leakers and fill hours and pages delving into their motives, quirks and shortcomings. ad hominem circumstantial.
System of secrecy? What happens to people who leak? The lengths Obama will go to in defending vindictive torture by the military hierarchy--in the same spirit and structure of power as the acts Manning was uncovering? That is important.The helicopter incident had sunk from discussion long before Manning was arrested. It was horrific, but -- unlike Abu Ghrayb -- there were no faces. The latest wikileaks seem to have been overshdowed mostly because they were procedural. No more videeos.
depends on what "the issues" are. do we want to discuss the system of secrecy? or the crimes evidenced? and it depends on what your objective is. is the objective to see the system of secrecy reformed, so that it can't be used to conceal the crimes of public servants, and whistle blowers are protected? well that can be achieved by enforcing the laws already on the books! a little bit of public discussion of the issues around the edges just might do the trick! (of course this approach is burdened with an undue faith in the rule of law.)however if the objective is to take down the system of secrecy so it becomes impossible to conceal crimes, in fact so it is more difficult to commit the crimes in the first place, well... to me it would seem better served if people felt safe leaking information anonymously, without fear of getting hemmed up in a hopeless, lawless system of persecution and torture, so that thousands of bits of leaked information could potentially pile up in the public domain. (and of course this approach is burdened with an undue faith that there are thousands of conscientious people out there who would provide evidence if given the chance.)my prior comment was speaking to the suspicion that the powerful are acting to maintain a system whereby they can continue to do crimes and hide the evidence by making an example out of the persecution and torture of Manning.
Well we'll see what happens to Manning. I think his treatment -- and its consistency with the crimes he disclosed -- is opening many eyes right now. See Greenwald's third item today. So the question becomes whether this intimidates more people or instead, by showing in broad daylight the violent absurdity of the structures of power, increases the number of conscientious people willing to provide evidence. I'm betting on the latter, though it is a reasonable strategic debate to be having.
thought u loved dick
Post a Comment