Subscribe via RSS Feed

The Crowley Firing

[ 40 ] March 14, 2011 |

I can’t add much to Greenwald, but it’s appalling that the only person losing their job over the arbitrary torture of Bradley Manning is someone who opposed it.

Comments (40)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Oscar Leroy says:

    Don’t worry about it. Obama has asked the people accused of torturing Manning if they tortured him and they said “no”. That should be more than good enough.

  2. Bart says:

    Over at Wikipedia it must be dispiriting to be in charge of adding items to the Obama page.

  3. Joe says:

    First and foremost, yes, it’s appalling.

    Keeping that in mind, did the guy expect to criticize the administration so publicly and keep his position? He [was] a spokesman.

    And, since so many of Obama’s supporters are now criticizing him, this must be real bad, given Greenwald’s usual line that “bipartisan” approval of this sort of executive overreaching is in place now. Of course, back in the day of “strongly written letters” as being the major response to Bush actions, that sort of thing was sort of in place too.

    We need a real opposition party. The current one cheers this sort of thing on, so Obama really is not pressured to do anything else.

  4. timb says:

    This whole thing is so embarrassing. I wonder how he expects to anything more than vote for him. Of the only areas I actually cared about in 2008 (the formation of the plutocracy and civil liberties), Obama has just been terrible. I listen and read “conservative” critiques of the President and how I wish he were the things they say he is.

  5. Anderson says:

    Keeping that in mind, did the guy expect to criticize the administration so publicly and keep his position? He [was] a spokesman.

    Yes. For the State Dep’t. Not for the Pentagon.

    I have no idea what chats he and Hillary had about Manning, if any.

    Regardless, this incident provided the public with its first confirmation that Manning’s treatment is approved by the White House, not just the Pentagon. (We suspected as much, but now it’s proved.)

    I continue to doubt that Manning is being “tortured” as that’s defined by law, but he’s being abused and mistreated, with Obama’s approval. This is not surprising, since Obama won’t close Gitmo or Bagram, won’t renounce the abuse of the state-secrets defense, and won’t stop fighting in court to keep Bush-era abuses from being addressed by the judiciary.

    None of that is what I voted for.

    • timb says:

      Hell, it’s what I voted AGAINST

    • Joe says:

      So, if I’m Clinton’s spokesman, I can strongly bad mouth any other department’s actions in major public forums, and Obama won’t mind?

      Not sure if that’s how it works. Meanwhile, per Secrecy News:

      However, the Defense Department reportedly rescinded its forced nudity policy towards Manning. “On Friday, officials said they are again providing him with sleeping garments,” the Washington Post reported.

      I didn’t vote for this sort of thing either. I do realize that people I vote for, especially major ones, will do some things I strongly oppose. So, where does that take us?

      I continue to find this focus of yours on the use of “torture” a tad bit curious, but I recognize your position. Many don’t think he is being “abused” either. Be careful when you use words like that. It might aid the other side! Also, as with Obama’s position on DOMA, definitions are not set in stone.

      Acts like this sometimes push definitions like “torture” to mean more than they do now.

      • Oscar Leroy says:

        Is it healthy to run a large organization (the US government) and require everyone to agree with you or receive walking papers? I say no.

        • Anderson says:

          The interesting question is whether Crowley’s op really was just his own personal one, or whether there’s been any debate within the gov’t over what they’re doing.

          Hillary has already suggested she’s not interested in a 2d term. Not much excuse for her to stay silent, unless she agrees w/ the Pentagon.

        • Joe says:

          “everyone agree with you” = “spokesperson publicly berating policy that [as Anderson said] goes to the top.”

          The guy wasn’t fired for disagreeing with the Obama Administration. People disagree in-house all the time. Publicly speaking out is another thing. When your very job is to be a mouthpiece, even more so.

          Personally, I think we can survive with even spokespersons speaking their mind sometimes though I do expect them to be pretty loyal (that is after all their job).

          But, no one who matters asked me.

      • John Protevi says:

        I continue to find this focus of yours on the use of “torture” a tad bit curious, but I recognize your position. Many don’t think he is being “abused” either. Be careful when you use words like that. It might aid the other side!

        Your concern is noted, Joe.

        • Joe says:

          Did I need a tag there? One never knows any more.

          • Joe says:

            a sarcasm tag.

            • John Protevi says:

              You mean “parody,” or if you want the genus, “satire.” And yes, if you’re going to it as badly as you do above, you should use tags.

              • Joe says:

                Thanks for telling me what I mean, but no, I meant sarcasm (derision, ridicule).

                It was something of an inside comment since it referenced a matter of debate I had with Anderson some time back. This is why I said “I continue” — it was in reference to past comments.

                It was a passing comment. Sorry if it didn’t meet your standards.

      • hv says:

        Be careful when you use words like that. It might aid the other side!

        Just for the record, this particular concern doesn’t motivate me at all. I am in favor of careful and thoughtful use of words to improve accuracy, and I understand there is a debate over “torture/abuse” in Manning’s case.

        But that tribalism shit — no patience for that.

      • dangermouse says:

        So, if I’m Clinton’s spokesman, I can strongly bad mouth any other department’s actions in major public forums, and Obama won’t mind?

        Yes let’s compare *all possible objections anyone might have to any Obama policy* to, you know, someone saying that torture is bad.

  6. Jim Harrison says:

    I’m not very sanguine about the executive branch so Obama’s bad behavior in this affair did not surprise me. What depresses me more is the prospect that no Federal judge is going to stand up and throw out the case against Manning. Until and unless prosecutors have something to fear for violating basic human rights, they’ll continue to do so. We’ve already seen that the Department of Justice is not going to enforce laws against torture and mistreatment, especially when it is complicit in such crimes.

    • timb says:

      I’m not sure they can. Right now, a habeas petition goes through the UCML court martial court. Not my area of the law, but I’m not sure your average Federal magistrate has jurisdiction

      • Jim Harrison says:

        You’re probably right, but that just means that the judicial cowardice will occur in a different court. Anyhow, Federal judges have had opportunities to call a halt to at least some of the abuses of power we’ve seen over the last decade. For the most part, they have kept their heads down. The broader question is, can the rule of law survive without somebody, somewhere showing some courage? After all, the notion that laws enforce themselves is mere animism.

  7. Incontinentia Buttocks says:

    In a more functional system, the treatment of Manning would provoke mass resignations from relevant parts of the Obama Administration.

    Heck, more Bushies resigned over that administration’s crimes than Obama administration members have quit over this one’s.

    Another great day to be a registered independent.

    • Anonymous says:

      Another great day to be a registered independent.

      This is just moral preening. Based on your comments on this kind of issue before, I expect I vote for Democrats as much as you do, mostly for the same reasons. That makes me (and you) share a certain amount of moral responsibility for all this. The fact that you register as an independent and I as a democrat is an irrelevent technicality; that you’d seize on it to engage in this nonsense is pretty grotesque, frankly.

      This is our country too, and it’s off a moral cliff, and it’s bigger than a President or a party or which box you checked on a form a decade or more ago.

      • papa zita says:

        Rather be moral and preen a bit than be an amoral team cheerleader.

        You better hope us independents vote rather than stay away in disgust. For my preening independent self, it’s about 70/30 I won’t. I don’t even know if SocSec is safe or is to be bargained away by this administration, let alone this vile episode of abuse.

        • DocAmazing says:

          What Papa said. Voting the lesser evil ceases to make sense when the difference drops below a certain critical mass.

  8. jeer9 says:

    The real question is whether this behavior changes anyone’s vote or does the hand firmly squeeze the nose and place a mark next to his name once more? He’s betting libs/progs can endure anything – like Manning. We’re so tolerant.

    On a side note: check out the documentaries on Tillman and Spitzer. They’re both excellent. Not that anyone needs to experience Rumsfeld and the military brass lying through their teeth again. Obama must be one of the last citizens who finds them trustworthy.

    • Anderson says:

      The real question is whether this behavior changes anyone’s vote or does the hand firmly squeeze the nose and place a mark next to his name once more? He’s betting libs/progs can endure anything – like Manning. We’re so tolerant.

      Obama needs more than votes. He needs $$, ground support, networking. He’s not getting any of that from me.

      The main difference between Obama and a Republican president, on these issues, seems to be that with the GOP in the White House, maybe Dems would oppose these abuses. Maaaaaaybe.

  9. Bart says:

    Why are so many Americans, descendants from wilderness-taming country-crossing immigrants, hiding under their beds?

  10. Stag Party Palin says:

    We’re fucked.

  11. Anderson says:

    And then Tom Ricks goes and reminds me of the My Lai anniversary this week.

    We don’t learn from our mistakes, because we don’t hold ourselves accountable for our mistakes.

  12. rhino says:

    Well, it’s important to note that the treatment of Manning, and the Wikileaks fiasco, are both likely contributors to the Obama one term presidency.

    Not that anyone with any sense would vote republican, but rather because it’s ‘shit like this, Obama, shit like this!!!’….which keeps your base home on polling day.

  13. Fritz says:

    Over at Commentary, I read this measured response to the criticism of Manning’s detainment. Goodman writes,

    All in all, “PFC Manning is being treated just like every other detainee in the brig,” says the Pentagon.

    Why is Goodman wrong?

    • Anderson says:

      I heard this early on and was inclined to credit it. However:

      (1) the longer the conditions last, the less plausible they are.

      (2) Who else is in the brig? Are they all awaiting trial? Has anyone there been held as long as Manning?

      (3) You could put Manning in a Supermax prison and then say “hey, he’s being treated the same as everyone else.” Which only begs the questionn, why is he being treated that way at all?

      (4) Permit me a wee smidgen of mistrust as to believing whatever the Pentagon says, just because it’s the Pentagon. They are, precisely, the party under attack here; I’m not prepared to play Obama and say “well gosh-willikers, that’s good enough for me.”

      Poor bastard — if Manning weren’t an American, he might get a Red Cross visit.

Leave a Reply




If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar.

  • Switch to our mobile site