Last week I got a holiday card from President Obama and family. I also keep hearing about how Michelle wants to invite me to dinner – or at least, I’ve got a chance of winning a seat at the table.
Since I’m still Facebook friends with Barack, I took the liberty of answering when he asked on FB what I’d like to talk about over a presidential meal:
WTF rule of law. WTF signing the new detention bill and not vetoing as announced. WTF civil liberties! WTF executing American citizens summarily, without trial, and forcing Bradley Manning to spend long hours naked. WTF habeus corpus and posse comitatus. And not least for us gals, WTF Plan B?!
I promise these topics will flow with pizzazz and charm over fine cuisine and the right wine.
That’s my little holiday rant, verbatim, sent directly to our Commander-in-Chief. Ah, the wonders of social networking!
What are the odds this’ll land me on a watch list of some sort?
Patron cat of Kittywampus (1985-2001)
I’d like to ask him (as well as Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi) why there was no “Church Committee” investigation centered on the Iraq debacle. Would have given the likes of Bolton, Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc. a welcome break from their Fox News commitments.
And, in the case of Bolton, would have guaranteed him no road back to any position in a future administration. (Gingrich already named him as his choice as his Secretary of State btw, thankfully Mr Newtron is electoral toast.)
Oh yes! But an investigation would have raised hard questions about the continued abrogation of the rule of law. I’m afraid Obama doesn’t want his successor to be tempted to prosecute *him.*
Hey hey — just wandering around, I don’t even remember how I got here …
but! Breanna Manning!!
http://globalcomment.com/2011/why-does-the-media-still-refer-to-%E2%80%9Cbradley%E2%80%9D-manning-the-curious-silence-around-a-transgender-hero/
Thanks for the link. I’ve been aware of the rumors (though I hadn’t seen that particular article), and I think you are probably correct, based on the preponderance of information. But as for how we should refer to Manning – well, I tend to agree with the commenters on that article who said we should follow Manning’s lead, and Manning has not publicly identified as trans. For now, I think it makes sense to use the name “Bradley” because that’s who the charges are leveled against, but try to avoid pronouns.
I do suspect that the abuse of forcing Manning to be naked is likely linked to the rumors about his gender identity. Of course I have no proof of this, but it is the kind of targeted humiliation that representatives of our country have practiced at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, etc.
First of all, the Bradley Manning Support Network is run by those most informed about everything Bradley Manning, and they haven’t given credence to these rumors. David House visited Manning for months, and has always referred to him as male. (And that website qout linked to leaves a lot to be desired in the credibility department. I mean, come on — millions of people have created virtual, on-line identities; doesn’t amount to much.)
Second, Coombs is proffering the best LEGAL defense he can come up with. I’m not a lawyer and god knows I don’t know how their heads work. But I do know they understand how the courts function, and what arguments are likely to gain traction to give their clients the best defense. I believe Manning is screwed, no matter what. I’m still out here fighting for him, and I will continue to do so, but I believe his fate is sealed. I’m not his lawyer. I don’t have to come up with a defense. If Coombs thinks this transgender defense is the strongest case he can make, knowing how the military works and how the legal process works, then fine. All it means is this is a legal argument.
Third, uh, it doesn’t matter. This “is-he-or-isn’t-he?” is a smokescreen. The critical issue is that we have a whistleblower who was unlawfully detained, without charges, and tortured — which is what solitary confinement is, according to international law — and abused and humiliated, for 8 months before charges were even drawn up. And he’s being railroaded in a kangaroo court by an administration that wants to break him and thinks that by doing so it can prosecute and imprison Julian Assange, and, even better, scare the wits out of anyone else out there who might consider blowing the whistle on crimes and abuses. Frankly, I don’t give a shit if he’s male, female, transgender, or whatever other terms are out there that admittedly I’m not up on. It’s not important.
Fourth: “I do suspect that the abuse of forcing Manning to be naked is likely linked to the rumors about his gender identity.”
I must disagree. It is commonplace to humiliate prisoners, all over the world, at all different times throughout history. And one of the most common ways to do that is to strip people naked. Torturers routinely do this. It’s done as punishment, as humiliation, as a way to threaten even more an already subjugated person, and as an exercise in power. To show who’s boss. (You know this, Sungold, from your familiarity with Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment.) It’s also done in hazing — in sports, in the military, at bachelor parties, etc. Sure, the sadistic shits at Ft. Meade might’ve gotten off even more on forcing him to stand naked if they’d heard rumors about his sexuality. But they wouldn’t have had to know a thing about it to do what they did.