HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Bradley Manning Won't Be ...

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 12:58 PM

Bradley Manning Won't Be SF Pride Grand Marshal

Source: Towleroad

Yesterday, Andy reported that Wikileaks soldier Bradley Manning had been appointed Grand Marshal of this year's San Francisco Pride. That's now changed. Late last night, SF Pride Board President Lisa Williams issued a statement claiming that Manning's confirmation for the honor was never supposed to happen in the first place and occurred due to a mistake by an internal staffer. That person has reportedly been disciplined.

Her statement went even further, explaining why the group will not include Manning in this year's event:

Bradley Manning is facing the military justice system of this country. We all await the decision of that system. However, until that time, even the hint of support for actions which placed in harms way the lives of our men and women in uniform -- and countless others, military and civilian alike -- will not be tolerated by the leadership of San Francisco Pride. It is, and would be, an insult to every one, gay and straight, who has ever served in the military of this country. There are many, gay and straight, military and non-military, who believe Bradley Manning to be innocent. There are many who feel differently. Under the US Constitution, they have a first amendment right to show up, participate and voice their opinions at Pride this year.

Before SF Pride released their statement last night, The American Military Partner Association had issued a strongly-worded response in which they said they were "outraged" and asked the group to reconsider Manning's appointment. Williams' announcement followed soon after.




Read more: http://www.towleroad.com/2013/04/bradely-manning.html

44 replies, 5034 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 44 replies Author Time Post
Reply Bradley Manning Won't Be SF Pride Grand Marshal (Original post)
dlwickham Apr 2013 OP
struggle4progress Apr 2013 #1
struggle4progress Apr 2013 #2
struggle4progress Apr 2013 #3
MH1 Apr 2013 #4
Occulus Apr 2013 #6
randome Apr 2013 #11
struggle4progress Apr 2013 #5
24601 Apr 2013 #7
LineLineLineReply +
struggle4progress Apr 2013 #8
Smarmie Doofus Apr 2013 #9
struggle4progress Apr 2013 #10
idwiyo Apr 2013 #12
struggle4progress Apr 2013 #13
idwiyo Apr 2013 #14
struggle4progress Apr 2013 #15
idwiyo Apr 2013 #17
struggle4progress Apr 2013 #19
idwiyo Apr 2013 #22
struggle4progress Apr 2013 #23
idwiyo Apr 2013 #24
railsback Apr 2013 #28
struggle4progress Apr 2013 #30
idwiyo Apr 2013 #33
struggle4progress Apr 2013 #35
idwiyo May 2013 #38
okaawhatever Apr 2013 #36
Pelican Apr 2013 #16
idwiyo Apr 2013 #18
Pelican Apr 2013 #31
idwiyo Apr 2013 #32
Pelican Apr 2013 #34
idwiyo May 2013 #37
Pelican May 2013 #39
idwiyo May 2013 #40
Pelican May 2013 #41
idwiyo May 2013 #42
Pelican May 2013 #43
idwiyo May 2013 #44
CrawlingChaos Apr 2013 #20
randome Apr 2013 #21
Smarmie Doofus Apr 2013 #26
randome Apr 2013 #27
Smarmie Doofus Apr 2013 #25
railsback Apr 2013 #29

Response to dlwickham (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 01:33 PM

1. San Francisco Pride committee backtracks on WikiLeaks suspect Manning as Grand Marshal

Posted by David Zimmerman
April 27, 2013 09:24 AM

... A committee of former San Francisco Pride grand marshals did select the 25-year-old Manning, who is openly gay, for the honor, but the Pride Board decided his nomination would be a mistake ...

"Manning's blatant disregard for the safety of our service members and the security of our nation should not be praised," said Stephen Peters, president of American Military Partners Association. The group, which advocates for same-sex military families, had called on the Pride Committee to rescind the invitation ...

http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/blogs/bostonspirit/2013/04/san_francisco_pride_committee.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlwickham (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 01:35 PM

2. WikiLeaks suspect won't be SF Pride parade marshal

11 hours ago • Associated Press

... Manning's lawyers have argued that his experience as a soldier before the repeal of the U.S. military's ban on gay service played an important role in his decision to pass hundreds of thousands of sensitive items to the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks ...

Contingents of Manning supporters have marched in past pride parades, and will do so again this year in San Francisco, Chicago, San Diego and other cities ...

http://magicvalley.com/news/national/wikileaks-suspect-named-sf-pride-parade-marshal/article_500e5cde-6eba-509c-835d-0c4a46cee7f3.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlwickham (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 01:37 PM

3. Discord at SF Pride over parade marshal

Neal J. Riley
Published 9:16 pm, Friday, April 26, 2013

... " ... Even the hint of support for actions which placed in harm's way the lives of our men and women in uniform - and countless others, military and civilian alike - will not be tolerated by the leadership of San Francisco Pride," Williams said. "It is, and would be, an insult to every one, gay and straight, who has ever served in the military of this country" ...

"Specifically, what these events have revealed is a system whereby a less-than-handful of people may decide who represents the LGBT community's highest aspirations as grand marshals for SF Pride," she said in the statement. "This is a systemic failure that now has become apparent and will be rectified" ...

... Zoe Dunning, a retired Navy commander and San Francisco activist, said she agreed that Manning's nomination was an error.

"He has done nothing for the LGBT Community, which is the criteria for a grand marshal," wrote Dunning, who is a lesbian. "He just happens to be gay, which is not sufficient."

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Discord-at-SF-Pride-over-parade-marshal-4468240.php

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlwickham (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 02:05 PM

4. It seemed like a really dumb and divisive thing to do, so I'm glad they reversed it.

Even someone who thinks Manning is this generation's Ellsberg, surely realizes that a lot of people don't agree; his actions were not directly in support of the LGBT cause (even if he is purportedly being targeted for harsh treatment due to his gender orientation); and it doesn't help the LGBT cause to take sides in this. Plus all the reasons Lisa Williams stated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MH1 (Reply #4)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:40 PM

6. Then you read the second paragraph of their statement, and the topology of their opposition changes

"Specifically, what these events have revealed is a system whereby a less-than-handful of people may decide who represents the LGBT community's highest aspirations as grand marshals for SF Pride. This is a systemic failure that now has become apparent and will be rectified. In point of fact, less than 15 people actually cast votes for Bradley Manning. These 15 people are part of what is called the SF Pride Electoral College, comprised of former SF Pride Grand Marshals. However, as an organization with a responsibility to serve the broader community, SF Pride repudiates this vote. The Board of Directors for SF Pride never voted to support this nomination. Bradley Manning will have his day in court, but will not serve as an official participant in the SF Pride Parade.

-- Lisa L. Williams, SF Pride Board President"

In other words, SF Pride, or more specifically its board of directors, decided it didn't like or didn't agree with the outcome of the vote. Note they do not state how many people voted, period, or show any breakdown of any such vote. Also note they are not contesting the validity of the vote itself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Occulus (Reply #6)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 07:34 PM

11. The Board of Directors has veto power and they used it. Big deal.

 

Not every vote in an organization is majority rules.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlwickham (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 02:18 PM

5. WikiLeaks defendant not San Fran Pride marshal

Written by WiG, AP reports
Apr 27, 2013

... Sean Sala, an activist who has organized an LGBT military presence in San Diego's Pride parades, said, "Bradley Manning is currently in Military tribunal for handing over Secret United States information to Wikileaks' Julian Assange. His actions endangered the lives of thousands of service members and their families across the globe. Manning has admitted to be the leaker" ...

http://www.wisconsingazette.com/breaking-news/wikileaks-defendant-not-san-fran-pride-marshal.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #5)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 04:56 PM

7. Manning is facing a General Court Martial, not a military tribunal. They are not the

same thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 24601 (Reply #7)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 04:59 PM

8. +

thx

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlwickham (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 05:37 PM

9. That's fine. Militarists hate him. Some of them are glbt too. But spare us the bullshit:

 

>>>>Bradley Manning is facing the military justice system of this country.>>>>>

That's an oxymoron. "Military" and "justice" don't belong in the same sentence. Ask the families of the dead in the Collateral Murder video.


>>> We all await the decision of that system. However, until that time, even the hint of support for actions which placed in harms way the lives of our men and women in uniform -->>>

Oh good god. Is this one for real? Can she get any more melodramatic? Can she get more unctuous? Can she pander just a little more? Wrap herself in the flag just a bit tighter?

>>> and countless others, military and civilian alike -- will not be tolerated by the leadership of San Francisco Pride. It is, and would be, an insult to every one, gay and straight, who has ever served in the military of this country. >>>

What an ass.

>>>There are many, gay and straight, military and non-military, who believe Bradley Manning to be innocent. There are many who feel differently. Under the US Constitution, they have a first amendment right to show up, participate and voice their opinions at Pride this year. >>>>

Gee thanks. Ya' really mean it? Can we, can we?!? Pleeeeease!?!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smarmie Doofus (Reply #9)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 07:22 PM

10. Not everyone who supports Manning is a progressive, nor is everyone

who opposes Manning a militarist

He assumes a symbolic role with mythic qualities in some quarters, because it is much easier to announce one's "support" for Manning than to engage in the hard nuts-n-bolts political work needed to advance progressive causes. Various anti-government ideologues "support" him because they simply want a breakdown of government, as described by Assange in an early manifesto. Some libertarians "support" him in the hopes of splitting a critical mass of progressives from the Democratic Party, a strategy Greenwald outlined shortly after the 2010 election. Certain conservatives have "supported" him because his deeds caused SoS Clinton a large diplomatic headache, requiring the reassignment of diplomatic personnel. Such mythologizing requires constant misrepresentation of what Manning actually did, his motives for doing so, and the actual effects of his acts. And once he is sentenced for his massive document release, we can expect these legions of "supporters" to melt away, as they transfer their vocal energies to their next mythic symbol

In fact, Manning is a bright but disturbed young man, who was scheduled for early separation from the military due to his personal problems. He dealt with these problems in various ways, which included physically attacking a woman, before he apparently decided he could win social approval through a massive document leak. The sheer size of the leak, which runs to hundreds of thousands of pages, indicates that he could not have had any clear idea about the actual significance of most of what he was leaking. Moreover, the group to whom he leaked has some history of indifference to the effects of their leaks. Whatever he says his motives were, Manning made no serious efforts to take advantage of existing mechanisms to protect whistle-blowers reporting real problems

There are a number of reasons Manning is being prosecuted. The military has a motive to prosecute him to maintain good order and discipline and to reassure other soldiers that their comrades are unlikely to be leaking sensitive material that could endanger their lives. The military cannot be expected to ignore massive leaks by soldiers entrusted with access to sensitive or secret documents. On the civilian side, there is the important principle of civilian control of the military and the recognized need for some secrecy in diplomatic communications: the civilian government does not delegate to the military the conduct of diplomacy, and no one in the military has the right to interfere with the civilian government's ultimate control over the country and its foreign policy. Thus, if the military had chosen not to prosecute Manning, the civilian government would have removed military brass until the military was once again controlled by persons respecting the principle of civilian control

The effects of Manning's acts are multiple. They probably include loss of anti-Taliban Afghanis and costly transfers of diplomatic staff. There have also been political repercussions. The 2010 Wikileaks disclosures effectively killed a whistle-blower protection act that had been expected to pass Congress without difficulty. The day after Manning was arrested in May 2010, the House passed an amendment to the 2011 NDAA that would have repealed DADT, but by the time the bill got to the Senate conservatives united to kill the amendment, probably motivated by the old accusation that homosexuality poses a security risk, with new life breathed into it by Manning's acts: this delayed DADT repeal by half a year or more

One certainly can be an anti-militarist without supporting Manning


... David Leigh and Luke Harding's history of WikiLeaks describes how journalists took Assange to Moro's, a classy Spanish restaurant in central London. A reporter worried that Assange would risk killing Afghans who had co-operated with American forces if he put US secrets online without taking the basic precaution of removing their names. "Well, they're informants," Assange replied. "So, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it." A silence fell on the table as the reporters realised that the man the gullible hailed as the pioneer of a new age of transparency was willing to hand death lists to psychopaths ...
The treachery of Julian Assange
The WikiLeaks founder, far from being a champion of freedom, is an active danger to the real seekers of truth
Nick Cohen
The Observer, Saturday 17 September 2011
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/18/julian-assange-wikileaks-nick-cohen

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #10)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 10:40 PM

12. Translation: blah, blah, disturbed young man, blah, blah, poor SOS Clinton, blah, blah,

no proof that any informants were harmed BUT WHAT IF THEY WERE, blah, blah, never mind torture prisons, blah, blah, forget about innocent people in Guantanamo, blah, blah, blah...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to idwiyo (Reply #12)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 10:56 PM

13. Manning has done nothing whatsoever helpful with regard to the issues of the secret prisons

or Guantanamo Bay

Both of these were issues long before Manning appeared on the scene

Our difficulties with prosecuting with folk for the Bush era secret prisons and torture, or with closing Guantanamo,result from inadequate political organization on the left in the US

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #13)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 11:04 PM

14. Really? Not according to Guardian or BBC. Or did you manage to miss their exposé on secret

prisons, torture and connection to El Salvador?

Here, just few of the links for you:

Revealed: Pentagon's link to Iraqi torture centres
Exclusive: General David Petraeus and 'dirty wars' veteran behind commando units implicated in detainee abuse

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/06/pentagon-iraqi-torture-centres-link

From El Salvador to Iraq: Washington's man behind brutal police squads
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/06/el-salvador-iraq-police-squads-washington

Iraq torture 'worse after Saddam'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5368360.stm





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to idwiyo (Reply #14)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 11:31 PM

15. You might want to search the DU archives from 2004-2005 for discussion of the so-called

"Salvador option." You might also want to search the DU archives from the same period for discussion of John Negroponte, who served Reagan in Honduras during the deathsquad era there, long before Bush II packed him off to Iraq

The Bush II administration had telegraphed their philosophy and intentions rather early, for example by appointing neocon Elliott Abrams as the NSC director for Near East and North African Affairs in late 2002. If you don't know who he is, you might want to learn about the Reagan era massacre at El Mozote, and you might want to note his acts associated with the 2002 Venezuelan coup attempt

People who were paying attention at the time noticed such details and interpreted then: sadly, not enough people listened. Years later, the Assangists came along and claimed to be revealing such matters for the first time

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #15)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 01:16 PM

17. The Guardian/BBC Arabic investigation was sparked by the release of classified US military logs

on WikiLeaks that detailed hundreds of incidents where US soldiers came across tortured detainees in a network of detention centres run by the police commandos across Iraq. Private Bradley Manning, 25, is facing a prison sentence of up to 20 years after he pleaded guilty to leaking the documents.

Revealed: Pentagon's link to Iraqi torture centres
Exclusive: General David Petraeus and 'dirty wars' veteran behind commando units implicated in detainee abuse


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/06/pentagon-iraqi-torture-centres-link


From El Salvador to Iraq: Washington's man behind brutal police squads

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/06/el-salvador-iraq-police-squads-washington


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to idwiyo (Reply #17)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 02:25 PM

19. So what? We've known for years that during the Bush II era, the neocons

pushed for a counter-insurgency model in Iraq based on the Salvadoran death squads and that the Bush II administration adopted this policy. Death squads were set up in Iraq based on the Reagan era policy towards El Salvador: responsibility for the decision went all the way to the top. Anyone who thinks this is a revelation simply wasn't paying attention when it was actually happening, because it was widely covered. Despite all the hype, we didn't learn about these crimes from Assange or Manning

US considers 'Salvador option' to tackle Iraq insurgents
David Teather in New York
The Guardian, Sunday 9 January 2005 21.51 EST
The United States is considering setting up an elite squad of assassins to target leaders of the Iraqi insurgency, according to reports yesterday. Newsweek .. said the Pentagon, in Washington, is drawing up possible proposals to send US special forces teams to advise, support and train hand-picked Iraqi squads to target Sunni rebels. The ploy has .. been called the "Salvador option" after the strategy that was secretly employed by Ronald Reagan's administration to combat the leftist guerrilla insurgency in El Salvador in the early 1980s. In that instance, the US government backed "nationalist forces" that hunted down rebel leaders and their supporters ...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jan/10/iraq.davidteather


The Way of the Commandos
May 1, 2005
By PETER MAASS
... The template for Iraq today is not Vietnam .. but El Salvador, where a right-wing government backed by the United States fought a leftist insurgency in a 12-year war beginning in 1980. The cost was high -- more than 70,000 people were killed, most of them civilians, in a country with a population of just six million. Most of the killing and torturing was done by the army and the right-wing death squads affiliated with it. According to an Amnesty International report in 2001, violations committed by the army and its associated paramilitaries included ''extrajudicial executions, other unlawful killings, 'disappearances' and torture ... Whole villages were targeted by the armed forces and their inhabitants massacred.'' As part of President Reagan's policy of supporting anti-Communist forces, hundreds of millions of dollars in United States aid was funneled to the Salvadoran Army, and a team of 55 Special Forces advisers, led for several years by Jim Steele, trained front-line battalions that were accused of significant human rights abuses. There are far more Americans in Iraq today -- some 140,000 troops in all -- than there were in El Salvador, but U.S. soldiers and officers are increasingly moving to a Salvador-style advisory role. In the process, they are backing up local forces that, like the military in El Salvador, do not shy away from violence. It is no coincidence that this new strategy is most visible in a paramilitary unit that has Steele as its main adviser; having been a key participant in the Salvador conflict, Steele knows how to organize a counterinsurgency campaign that is led by local forces. He is not the only American in Iraq with such experience ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/01/magazine/01ARMY.html?pagewanted=print


U.S. Operatives Killed Detainees During Interrogations in Afghanistan and Iraq
October 24, 2005
CIA, Navy Seals and Military Intelligence Personnel Implicated
NEW YORK - The American Civil Liberties Union today made public an analysis of new and previously released autopsy and death reports of detainees held in U.S. facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan, many of whom died while being interrogated. The documents show that detainees were hooded, gagged, strangled, beaten with blunt objects, subjected to sleep deprivation and to hot and cold environmental conditions. "There is no question that U.S. interrogations have resulted in deaths," said Anthony D. Romero ... "High-ranking officials who knew about the torture and sat on their hands and those who created and endorsed these policies must be held accountable. America must stop putting its head in the sand and deal with the torture scandal that has rocked our military." The documents released today include 44 autopsies and death reports as well as a summary of autopsy reports of individuals apprehended in Iraq and Afghanistan. The documents show that detainees died during or after interrogations by Navy Seals, Military Intelligence and "OGA" (Other Governmental Agency) ...
http://www.aclu.org/human-rights-national-security/us-operatives-killed-detainees-during-interrogations-afghanistan-and-


(Baghdad) Morgue pressed to stay quiet
<Wed Mar-01-06 10:27 AM>
... Officials overseeing Baghdad's morgue have come under pressure not to investigate the soaring number of apparent cases of executions and torture in the country, the former U.N. human rights chief for Iraq said yesterday ... Al-Jaafari said the toll was 379. Gen. Ali Shamarri of the Interior Ministry statistics department put the toll at 1,077 ...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2139194&mesg_id=2139194


Horror show reveals Iraq’s descent (Baghdad Morgue)
<Sat Jun-17-06 11:26 PM>
... It is here that bodies from the nightly slaughter are dumped each morning. The stench of decaying flesh, mingled with disinfectant, hits you at the checkpoint 100 yards away. Each corpse tells a different story about the terrors of Iraq. Some bodies are pocked with holes inflicted by torturers with power drills. Some show signs of strangulation; others, with hands tied behind the back, bear bullet wounds. Many are charred and dismembered ...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2343679&mesg_id=2343679

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #19)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 05:18 PM

22. Thanks to Bradley Manning its indisputable now. Not that you would ever admit it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to idwiyo (Reply #22)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 05:20 PM

23. It was indisputable eight years ago

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #23)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 05:27 PM

24. Thanks to Bradley Manning it is indisputable now. All there in those leaked papers for everyone to

see. Not that you would ever admit it.

By any means, keep digging.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #23)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 06:13 PM

28. Bravo

 

Every time I make the argument that Manning is exactly where he belongs right now, I get bombarded with heroic worship.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to railsback (Reply #28)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 06:58 PM

30. I'm guessing it's just easier to claim to support Manning, than it is to actually pay attention

to recent history and current events, or to engage in actual tedious political work

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #30)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 09:40 AM

33. It's very easy to support someone who provides an irrefutable proof that military was engaged

in torture, war crimes and systematic coverup of the above.

Otherwise it was "oh, it's just a few bad apples", "we don't torture", etc, etc, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to idwiyo (Reply #33)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 02:43 PM

35. THE TORTURE PAPERS: THE ROAD TO ABU GHRAIB

by Karen J. Greenberg and Joshua L. Dratel (eds)
New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005
1284pp. Cloth
£27.50/$50.00

... By collecting 28 memos, five reports, two bar association statements, and five appendices into one volume, the editors of THE TORTURE PAPERS have provided a valuable service. Chronologically arranged, one can trace the development of U.S. legal policy from September 25, 2001, through March 19, 2004 – a year after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and shortly before the Abu Ghraib photographs were seen worldwide. As co-editor Joshua Dratel writes, the memos collected were “the product of three pernicious purposes . . . : (1) the desire to place detainees beyond the reach of any court or law; (2) the desire to abrogate the Geneva Convention with respect to the treatment of persons seized in the context of armed hostilities; and (3) the desire to absolve those implementing the policies of any liability for war crimes under U.S. and international law” ...

Detainees can be placed beyond the reach of law if no law applies to them. Pernicious Purpose 2, placing al Qaeda and the Taliban outside of the Geneva Convention, was accomplished through a series of memos that created new categories of “unlawful combatants.” The Military Order issued by George Bush on November 13, 2001 (memo #2) laid the groundwork, but the memoranda continue into February of 2002. From the Attorney General’s Office of Legal Counsel, John Yoo (memo #4) and Jay Bybee (memo #6) argued in January of 2002 that U.S. treaties and laws, including part of the Geneva Convention, do not apply to Al Qaeda and the Taliban. This determination is forwarded by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to the Joint Chiefs that same month (memo #5). In February Attorney General John Ashcroft (memo #9) and Assistant Attorney General Bybee (memo #12) further develop positions on excluding al Qaeda and the Taliban from the Geneva Convention ...

Most of the remaining 15 memos address interrogation methods and constraints, and it is in these memos that we find the link between Pernicious Purpose 2, abrogation of the Geneva Convention, and Pernicious Purpose 3, insulation from criminal liability– the road map to Abu Ghraib. Central among these is memo #14, Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee’s August 1, 2002, memo to Presidential Counsel Alberto Gonzales on the “standards of conduct for Interrogation under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2340-2340A.” This is the so-called torture memo, in which the Office of Legal Counsel defines torture – forbidden under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2340-2340A – very narrowly. The narrow definition is achieved both by distinguishing torture from “cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment,” and by establishing a high threshold to be accountable for committing torture: because (based on earlier definitions) one has to have acted “with the specific intent to inflict severe pain, the infliction of such pain must be the defendant’s [*760] precise objective” (p.174). The memo helpfully distinguishes “severe pain and suffering” from merely pain or suffering – and also defines “severe mental pain and suffering.” In the absence of statutory definitions, the memo cites authorities such as a 1935 dictionary entry and congressional acts related to disability, before concluding that “The victim must experience intense pain or suffering of the kind that is equivalent to the pain that would be associated with serious physical injury so severe that death, organ failure, or permanent damage resulting in a loss of significant body function will result. If that pain or suffering is psychological, that suffering must result from one of the acts set forth in the statute. . . . In short, reading the definition of torture as a whole, it is plain that the term encompasses only extreme acts” (p.183) ...

The trail of documents here suggests that the pictures we have seen are the tip of an iceberg. Indeed, in late July 2005 the military defied a Federal District Court order to release 87 more photographs and 4 videotapes of Abu Ghraib abuse; the government’s position is that to do so would violate the Geneva Conventions by further humiliating detainees depicted in the photos (Zernike 2005). The power of photographs then is great, for the military has already released over 60,000 pages of documents about the abuse – 50 times what is included here. Ironically, the very photographs that draw our attention to the treatment of detainees allow us to focus on the few military personnel depicted in them. Only by reading the reports do we get a sense of how widespread the abuse was, and only by reading the memos are we forced to confront why.


http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/greenberg-dratel805.htm


Only those, who have not being paying careful attention, think the credit for what we know belongs to Assange or Manning. The above book, for example, was published when Manning was a 16-year-old, living with his mother in Wales

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #35)

Wed May 1, 2013, 06:23 PM

38. Classified papers released by Bradley Manning are the ultimate proof. Hard to deny it wasn't a

matter of government policy instead of "oh, it's just few bad apples", "we do t torture", etc, etc.

Not sure why you are trying to bring Assange into this conversation. WikiLeacks published the papers but I don't remember anyone insisting that somehow Assange should have a credit for it.
He gets a credit for publishing, nothing else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #10)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 05:37 PM

36. I agree. Thanks for the reply. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlwickham (Original post)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 06:34 AM

16. Good move...

 

No reason to associate a decent movement with scum like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pelican (Reply #16)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 01:19 PM

18. Patriot, you mean? Or do you approve of murdering innocent civilians and torture?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to idwiyo (Reply #18)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 08:59 PM

31. No I definitely meant scum...

 

I could have expanded and gone with something like "10%er who failed at everything he ever tried in the Army except one thing and oath breaking, lying, delusional, idiot piece of scum" but it didn't have the right flow.

As to the totally unrelated subject of murdering innocent civilians and torture I find that I fall into the anti camp. Why do you ask?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pelican (Reply #31)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 09:27 AM

32. Why do I ask? It should be obvious. But do pray to tell what is it that Bradley Manning did wrong.

"Oath breaking" to whom? The very military that was systematically engaged in war crimes and torture?
Delusional? How so?
Lying? What is it he was lying about?

As to totally related subject of murdering innocent civilians and torture, what would you have done? Stood by and did nothing, just like fuck knows how many others did? "I was just following my orders"? THAT excuse? The most disgusting and cowardly excuse of all times.

P.S. What's 10%?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to idwiyo (Reply #32)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 11:14 AM

34. Down the list...

 

Oath Breaking... Yes to the military and the government and the CinC. You know.. the Commander in Chief who is the head of the party that this site is named after?

"I, Dipshit Bradley Manning, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Delusional if he felt like this was a moral stand in any sense of the word. The release of information that he hadn't even read was grossly irresponsible and the hope that something was in there that would validate his pathetic need to strike back at the Army was the definition of delusional. He made the process of diplomacy that much harder and thus the chance of violent conflict that much higher all around the world.

Lying... Aside from the oath breaking covered above he lied to his direct superiors about what he was doing.

As for stood by and doing nothing... What exactly are you referring to? The "Collateral Murder" video? Please be specific...

Lastly... 10%er.. I shouldn't throw military terms your way without context I suppose. A 10%er is one of that small group out of any unit who will take up 90% of your time with their shitty work, shitty attitudes and total inability to function as a Soldier.

IOW "10% of your Soldiers will take up 90% of your time"

Edit: Here is your boy crying his eyes out at Basic Training. A fine indicator of his career to come...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pelican (Reply #34)

Wed May 1, 2013, 05:14 PM

37. Thanks for admiting that you would just obey your orders, judging by what you wrote.

Sad but not surprising. It takes guts to do what's right and that kid in the picture you posted definitely has more than those who knew but just stood by and did absolutely nothing. Some because they were just obeying their orders, some because they think that an oath absolves of responsibility, some because they are just cowards, and some because they approved.

BTW, I am ashamed for you because you think that a picture of a man crying somehow makes your argument stronger. Very said but not surprising, taking into consideration the rest of your post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to idwiyo (Reply #37)

Wed May 1, 2013, 08:19 PM

39. I think you missed the part...

 

... about being specific.

Color me shocked...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pelican (Reply #39)

Wed May 1, 2013, 08:26 PM

40. You stated yourself that an oath must be kept, regardless. Meaning you would follow your orders.

Blame yourself for what you wrote. Nothing to do with me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to idwiyo (Reply #40)

Wed May 1, 2013, 08:35 PM

41. Order...

 

to...

do...

what...

specifically...?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pelican (Reply #41)

Wed May 1, 2013, 08:38 PM

42. Ignore torture as a example.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to idwiyo (Reply #42)

Wed May 1, 2013, 08:42 PM

43. Finally...

 

No, if I saw folks being tortured I would report that.

As someone with more insight into Abu Ghraib than most, I hold the Commander as responsible as the folks doing the acts.

What else you got?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pelican (Reply #43)

Wed May 1, 2013, 08:50 PM

44. Report to your commanders? They would have ordered you to ignore it. As per the the orders they

had. The confirmation of that is in those papers released by Bradley Manning.

Your only next step would be to report it to someone else outside of your chain of command. That would require breaking your oath. You already stated that oath must be kept. What conclusions should I draw but that you would just obey your orders?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlwickham (Original post)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 04:08 PM

20. I agree with Glenn Greenwald on this

"Bradley Manning is off limits at SF Gay Pride parade, but corporate sleaze is embraced":

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/27/bradley-manning-sf-gay-pride

There is a disturbing right-wing shift taking place in the LGBT movement. I used to always go to the parade. Now I hope the protesters turn out in force and are the loudest voice there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrawlingChaos (Reply #20)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 04:53 PM

21. Protesting what? What did Manning ever do for the LGBT community? Apparently nothing.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Smarmie Doofus (Reply #26)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 05:44 PM

27. Well, that IS something. But holding a sign may not be enough to qualify one for 'Grand Marshal'.

 

I would still defer to the SF Pride organization to determine that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrawlingChaos (Reply #20)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 05:27 PM

25. Jeeezus, Geenwald's piece is fucking *brilliant*.

 

A taste:

>>>So apparently, the very high-minded ethical standards of Lisa L Williams and the SF Pride Board apply only to young and powerless Army Privates who engage in an act of conscience against the US war machine, but instantly disappear for large corporations and banks that hand over cash. What we really see here is how the largest and most corrupt corporations own not just the government but also the culture. Even at the San Francisco Gay Pride Parade, once an iconic symbol of cultural dissent and disregard for stifling pieties, nothing can happen that might offend AT&T and the Bank of America. The minute something even a bit deviant takes place (as defined by standards imposed by America's political and corporate class), even the SF Gay Pride Parade must scamper, capitulate, apologize, and take an oath of fealty to their orthodoxies (we adore the military, the state, and your laws). And, as usual, the largest corporate factions are completely exempt from the strictures and standards applied to the marginalized and powerless. Thus, while Bradley Manning is persona non grata at SF Pride, illegal eavesdropping telecoms, scheming banks, and hedge-fund purveryors of the nation's worst right-wing agitprop are more than welcome.>>>>

I guess if you live long enough you see everything corrupted and turned upside down. I remember when Pride Parades were *marches* against sexual fascism.

Now the corporate and military fascists have consumers thinking fascism is anti fascism and anti-fascists are pariahs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smarmie Doofus (Reply #25)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 06:19 PM

29. *Brilliant* in the sense that if defends Manning worship

 

The Manning defense team certainly has another take on Manning's actions, which apparently the SF Pride Board is well aware of: Manning did what he did because he was emotionally distraught about his sexuality, and shouldn't have been put in the position of having access to top secret government documents.

How exactly is that an 'act of conscience' is beyond me. Maybe you can explain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread