I only have internet access a few minutes a day this week, so I don't have time for a proper diary. I post this primarily to get the story on record here, because my inept searches find no indication this has been reported.
State Department spokesperson PJ Crowley has resigned in the wake of his public remarks critical of the treatment of prisoner Bradley Manning. On Friday, March 11, David Mizner reported here on Crowley's candid remarks as tweeted by Phillipa Thomas, who attended the MIT conference at which the remarks were made. President Obama has responded to the reports of the torture of Manning with assurances that Manning's treatment is "appropriate".
In his letter of resignation, Crowley said
My recent comments…were intended to highlight the broader, even strategic impact of discreet actions undertaken by national security agencies every day and their impact on our global standing and leadership.
In calling the treatment of Manning "ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid", Crowley didn't even mention illegal and immoral and shameful, but it was still enough to get him fired. This week, for the first time in years, I have been stuck trying to glean information from CNN. From listening to them and President Obama, one would think that actual information concerning Manning's actual treatment is not available to those lacking high-level security clearance. Here is the President of the United States:
(I) 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...(they) assure me that they are. I can't go into details about some of their concerns, but some of this has to do with Private Manning's safety as well.
Apologies for the lack of links--I am operating under severe restrictions. All of these quotes are easily confirmable.
CNN reported on Monday that PJ Crowley had resigned over his remarks without mentioning any details of Manning's treatment. Their very brief announcement said there had been some controversy "on the internet". No mention was made of Amnesty International. They also quoted Obama as having "been assured" that Manning's treatment is "appropriate". (I find it interesting that he always uses the word "appropriate" and never "legal.") The next day, the pacifying blurb on CNN described our President as "angry" over the allegations that Manning is being mistreated. This is news in America today.
The UCMJ is very clear on this issue, and the treatment of Manning, as well as his lengthy pre-trial detention, is in blatant violation of specific articles in the UCMJ as well as of the spirit of pre-trial detention as made evident in virtually every article describing the conditions of detention. His treatment also violates specific constitutional language as well as jus cogens law, the basic law accepted by all civilized people to apply at all places at all times, regardless of particular circumstances. That the treatment of Manning constitutes torture has been argued forcefully by experts on these matters. For even a lazy person offended by the notion of his country torturing, these reports should be easy enough to find.
A final note on the frightening experience of getting "news" the way most Americans do. The pap they serve up is, above all else, infantalizing. People are told how to feel about stories rather than empowered with information. Focus is on individual stories rather than realistic assessment of actual forces in the world. The effect is to encourage people to trust people in authority and to assure viewers that people with power are well-meaning and implicity deserving of trust. I sat through several minutes of a "story" on an unremarkable six-year-old who was trying to help Japan by selling her typical six-year-old drawings. It was cute in the way appropriate for chatting before day care, not for learning about a terrible catastrophe with wide-spread implications. The point of the story, as is the point of much of CNN, seems to be that we are a good people. It is enough for us to hear the President say that Manning's treatment is okay. We do not need to know the details. Those people "on the internet" can be easily dismissed.
And President Obama continues to be "angry" at those who insist that laws against torure be honored, as he has been generally angry at the "professional left" almost since the day he took office.
To paraphrase the estimable Cornel West, who was asked what we can do now that it is plain that the Obama administration will not be responsive to progressive causes:
Bear witness, brother. Bear witness.
Updated with this information from SagebrushBob:
Treatment of accused Wikileaks source "Cruel and Unusual": ACLU
In a letter sent to Defense Secretary Robert Gates today, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said the Department of Defense's treatment of 23-year-old Pfc. Bradley Manning was a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Manning faces numerous charges for stealing classified files and is suspected as the source of a massive trove of State Department documents published on the WikiLeaks website in recent months. He has been held at the Quantico brig since July under a maximum security regimen, which leaves him in his cell for 23 hours a day, because authorities say his escape would pose a risk to national security.
"The Supreme Court has long held that the government violates the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment whenever it unnecessarily and wantonly inflicts pain," the letter to Gates stated. "No legitimate purpose is served by keeping Private Manning stripped naked; in prolonged isolated confinement and utter idleness; subjected to sleep deprivation through repeated physical inspections throughout the night; deprived of any meaningful opportunity to exercise, even in his cell; and stripped of his reading glasses so that he cannot read."
"Nor has the Department of Defense any legitimate purpose in requiring Private Manning to stand naked in his observation cell at 'parade rest,' with legs spread and genitals displayed, in full view of guards and other officers," the letter continued. "The very purpose of such treatment is to degrade, humiliate, and traumatize -- a purpose that cannot be squared with what the Supreme Court has described as 'the basic concept underlying the Eighth Amendment, which is nothing less than the dignity of man.'"
Update 2, from Catnip
Bradley Manning's military doctors accused over treatment
A leading group of doctors in the US concerned with the ethical treatment of patients has questioned the role of military psychiatrists in Quantico, Virginia, where the suspected WikiLeaks source Bradley Manning is being subjected to harsh treatment that some call torture.
The advocacy body Physicians for Human Rights has sounded the alarm over the role of psychiatrists at the brig in the marine base where Manning has been in custody since last July.
The group sees the psychiatrists as trapped in a situation of "dual loyalty", where their obligations to the military chain of command may conflict with their medical duty to protect their patient...