Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Greenwald a Champion for Bradley Manning

As I stated in a previous post, I will never cast a vote for Barack Obama due to his administration's treatment of Bradley Manning. To some, it might seem foolish to base a vote on one singular issue, but, for me, the injustice meted out to this one American citizen is representative of a president and administration that thumbs its nose at the law and US Constitution whenever they feel like it. If they can so disregard basic decency for Manning, it's not hard to imagine the depravities they levy against non-citizens!

One of the journalistic champions of Bradley Manning has been the courageous and well-documented writings of Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com. While most mainstream news organizations, reporters and pundits merely spew out the government line, Greenwald digs beneath and continues to keep Manning's unfolding situation in the spotlight. I don't think it is an overstatement at all to suggest that Greenwald's continued reporting and criticism of Manning's inhumane incarceration was the spark, in large part, to the decision to move Manning from Quantico to Ft. Leavenworth.

In his most recent column on Manning, Greenwald writes,
Protesters yesterday interrupted President Obama's speech at a $5,000/ticket San Francisco fundraiser to demand improved treatment for Bradley Manning. After the speech, one of the protesters, Logan Price, approached Obama and questioned him. Obama's responses are revealing on multiple levels. First, Obama said this when justifying Manning's treatment (video and transcript are here):
We're a nation of laws. We don't let individuals make their own decisions about how the laws operate. He broke the law.
The impropriety of Obama's public pre-trial declaration of Manning's guilt ("He broke the law") is both gross and manifest. How can Manning possibly expect to receive a fair hearing from military officers when their Commander-in-Chief has already decreed his guilt?...It may be that Obama spoke extemporaneously and without sufficient forethought, but it is -- at best -- reckless in the extreme for him to go around decreeing people guilty who have not been tried: especially members of the military who are under his command and who will be adjudged by other members of the military under his command. Moreover, as a self-proclaimed Constitutional Law professor, he ought to have an instinctive aversion when speaking as a public official to assuming someone's guilt who has been convicted of nothing. It's little wonder that he's so comfortable with Manning's punitive detention since he already perceives Manning as a convicted criminal...
There are a multitude of reasons why I do not support the Obama presidency and this one is the most glaring. It clearly illustrates to me that Obama isn't that much different than Bush Jr.

1 comment:

  1. I have no comment about the actual conditions of Mr. Manning's incarceration or his guilt or innocence (although it looks to me he's pretty guilty by his own admission, although perhaps not very stable), but he has been charged with a VERY serious offense which is being handled under the UCMJ. If you have a security clearance, and pass classified material to ANYONE without authorization, you have violated terms of an agreement which you willingly accepted, knowing that serious fines and/or imprisonment are the non-negotiable consequence.

    If you sign a contract you have to keep up the payments. If you join the Army, you know you may wind up having to kill someone or protect information. I'm not making any comment about this war, but in another time or place, Manning would simply be called a traitor and probably shot.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are unmoderated, so you can write whatever you want.