Ellsberg: Wikileaks Logs Show Clear US War Crimes in Iraq—Manning Was Reportedly Motivated By Conscience

by Ellsberg.Net on March 18, 2011

Edited transcript of today’s Democracy Now interview with Daniel Ellsberg

ELLSBERG: The conditions under which Manning is being held clearly violate the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution against cruel and unusual punishment—even for someone being punished, having been convicted. Here we have someone who has not yet been tried, not yet convicted, being held in isolation, solitary confinement, for something over 9 months. This is something that is likely to drive a person mad, and may be the intent of what’s going on here.

The Wikileaks revelations that Manning is charged with having revealed, having to do with Iraq, show that in fact the US military in which Manning was a part, turns over suspect to the Iraqis with the knowledge that they will be and are being tortured. Turning these suspects over, with that knowledge, is a clear violation of our own laws and of international law. It makes us as much culpable for the torture as if we were doing it ourselves.

Moreover, the Wikileaks logs show, the order is given: “Do not investigate further.” That’s an illegal order, which our president could change and should change and must change with one call.

Reportedly, Manning was very strongly motivated, at one point, to try to change this situation, because he was involved in it actively, and knew that it was wrong. He found that it was not being investigated within the government and was not being dealt with at all.

That’s a big difference between the Pentagon Papers and the WIkileaks logs. The former were higher level things which didn’t reveal field-level war crimes. The Wikileaks actually do.

Well, P.J. Crowley described the conditions under which Manning is held as “ridiculous, counterproductive, and stupid.” That seems an accurate description as far as it goes. The words “abusive” and “illegal” would go beyond that, and are equally appropriate.

I was very dismayed that the president, faced with accustations at such a high level from his assistant secretary for public affairs, rather than investigating and discovering—as he easily could have—that the descriptions by Crowley’s counterpart at the defense department, have been totally false, and that Obama has been totally misinformed.

The president’s reaction was very dismaying. He was satisfied with having asked the Defense Department, whether the conditions were “appropriate” and met “basic standards.” He was assured that they did.

That was very like president Nixon asking the White House Plumbers, or asking his counsel John Ehrlichman, who was in charge of them–”Was it appropriate, and did it meet our standards, for you to be burglarizing Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist? Did that meet our basic standards?”

And when told by Howard Hunt, or G. Gordon Liddy, “Yes, no problem,” that’s the end of that matter.

It’s so absurd, it really raises the question very much about president Obama’s understanding of the law, or his willingness to abide by it, in this case. And not for the first time.

{ 24 comments… read them below or add one }

Katherine May 18, 2011 at 6:12 pm

You are truly an inspiration!

John Hendry May 11, 2011 at 10:47 pm

Democracy less law and order can only equal one thing: a dictatorship.

John Hendry^^

David Collins May 3, 2011 at 6:57 pm

Manning’s detention at Marine Corps Base Quantico appeared to be cruel and unusual punishment, and appeared to violate the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution. Marines say “semper fi” is not just an expression, but a “way of life”. If being “always faithful” is the Marine “way of life”, perhaps the Marines at Quantico should reflect on precisely what it was that they were being faithful to regarding the incarceration and treatment of Manning.
In accordance with the “speedy trial” rights of the Sixth Amendment, a pre-trial hearing is supposed to be held to determine whether a trial is warranted. The trial hearing is supposed to be completed in an expeditious manner so that those who are “presumed innocent” do not “rot in prision” for an extended time. Although the Constitution of the United States does not cite it explicitly, presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments.
Manning [who is now at Fort Leavenworth] has been in custody for about a year now and [as I understand it] a hearing date has yet to be set. I would say the military establishment has [so far] clearly violated the letter of the 6th and 8th amendments, and may have violated the spirit of the 5th and 14th amendments as well.
I greatly admire Peyton and Eli Manning, but they are not heros of mine. Bradley Manning is, as is Daniel Ellsberg and others. I myself have taken ethical stands in the nuclear power industry to try to communicate the truth so that people could make informed decisions. Ralph Nader commended me for “standing tall”, but I am not “Green Party” or “ant-nuclear”. I am pro “telling the truth to people” so that people can make informed decisions about things that affect their lives. I have read Gerstein’s excellent book “Flirting With Disaster” some of Ellsberg’s comments in the book resonated deeply with me.
Right now I am involved trying to communicate factual information about radiation to the Japanese who live in villages near Fukushima. It appears in certain cases the government is planning to argue that fixed radiation levels 20x what was previously considered the permissible maximum is now “safe”. This appears to be for political expediency and appears to lack proper scientific basis or consensus. There is a Japanese radiation specialist who believes the information I have been communicating, who is now asking for my advice and help, fearful of going public and going against the government.
The reason I posted this is I would like to have a phone conversation with Daniel and get some ideas and thoughts on how to best manage this situation, which is new one for me.

A. Benway April 30, 2011 at 1:20 am

With regard to the business of war crimes and war criminals it seems to me that it’s important to recognize that the claim made by, for example, Goering at Nuremberg, that the trials were a shame – (“Siegerjustiz” – the German term translates as “victor’s justice” – was what he called the trials) – has been proved now by recent and, apparently, present government officials in the several NATO States. Thus one achievement of the so-called “war on terror” has been the vindication of the NAZI war-ethos, including, it seems, the fuhrerprinzip – seemingly this is indistinguishable from the notion of the “unitary executive”. “Der Sieger wird immer der Richter und der Besiegte stets der Angeklagte sein.”, Goering said. Any frank and honest examination of the present state of affairs shows that the Nazi view has been embraced along with a substitution of ukase for law. What an accomplishment! Still, it may cause some unease for the great men – after all, the Nazis lost…

Miriam Hill April 29, 2011 at 6:38 pm

Hi. Mr. Ellsberg. I am a reporter for the Philadelphia Inquirer and I am writing about Franz Jagerstatter. I am told that he influenced your decisions about the Pentagon Papers. Would you be available for an interview?

Thanks.

Miriam Hill

A. Benway April 27, 2011 at 8:10 pm

Some might say that certain high officials are “public servants” – well, of course they are, if one chooses to see things according to the form of the republic. When people say “we” they are subscribing to this fantasy. But the reality of matters today is revealed by the actions these “high officials” and the obvious policies they pursue. Accordingly, the cold-blooded reality is that Manning is being tortured, as policy, and as an example to terrorize the rest of the so-called citizens and particularly the military. This reality implies that the “high officials” are doing exactly as they’re told, exactly what they need to do to keep their positions. Material deviation from that course results in, well, what can it be called except liquidation? Ask Kennedy…

Sherry Reedy April 27, 2011 at 6:11 am

Too many people have forgotten or never knew the lessons from the Vietnam War, but the governments of the past decade have known how to create quagmires. Daniel Ellsberg, a legend living among us, will, I hope, speak out on television against the illegal and unconstitutional war in Libya, as well as the assasination attempts against Col. Muamar Qaddafi, a long-time friend of American liberals.
Who will be defending the majority Libyan civilians who support Col. Qaddafi from NATO bombs? As for whether America is at war: if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.
Impeach Obama, the war criminal.
Some differences between Libya and the other Arab countries include that Qaddafi is a popular leader in his country, he has allowed the majority Libyans to arm themselves and enabled the average person there to make $13,800. per year, more than some Americans since this amount is in American dollars and worth more there.
The “rebels” are a small, minority rival tribe which has been supported financially and in weaponry from the time they staged an “uprising”. They quickly, with the support of the United Nations, struck the oil cities by surprise, creating massive unemployment and misery among the foreign workers who fled their violence.
The Libyan government reacted with amazing slowness and patience, not striking back in self-defense until al-Qaeda, CIA operatives and mercenaries joined them and increased the threat. Naturally, the “rebels” have no reason to negotiate when others are willing to do the fighting for them and put petro dollars and aid in their pockets.
It is the blood for oil play again. NATO nations support the Arab regimes butalizing and impoverishing their people. They want to stamp out the only popular leader in the region. While Qaddafi is not popular here, he is popular in his own country. That is what matters.
“Protecting the civilians” is an euphemism for the loser “rebels” who have been wearing civilian clothes. When the media claim “witnesses say”, “reports”, “sources say” and other non-specific attributions, it is coming from “rebels” and their supporters and is another bold lie, part of their tsunami of propaganda.
The NATO nations conducting the war are all near “belly up” countries economically. Stealing Libya’s oil fields is an attractive option to them. They are worse than the image they’ve created for Qaddafi via media manipulation.
End the illegal war on Libya and assination policy of the United States and the American-led NATO forces.

David Honig April 22, 2011 at 9:05 pm

Dr. Ellsberg, I just watched _The Most Dangerous Man_. I was born in 1964 so I had little concept at the time, and until watching this movie, you were just a vague idea.

You are now a hero of the first order: you were Manning and Assange in the era of deadtree papers. The PP were more highly classified than that stuff, and you were in more telecomm danger.

I’ve been a fan and participant in cryptome, wikileaks, and the cypherpunk (freedom enabled by technology, esp crypto tech) culture. I am now agog at how brave folks –esp you– were in the previous generation.

I decided to use my True Name because… well, you know.

Courage is contagious.

Michael Rapson April 8, 2011 at 1:03 am

@Chris

There was nothing hatefilled nor emotional about my criticisms of Obama. Obama is a public servant who is subject to criticism from the people who pay he seeks to lead- and rightly so, in any democracy. The trouble with America today is that these leaders, both civilian and military, have taken on the persona of autocrats and kings- and that is extremely deliterious to any democracy.
You don’t seem to know the difference between a critique and an emotional rant. Although, I must compliment you on your passion and commitment to debate. You seem to be a very dedicated person, albeit wrong-headed in this case.
Best of luck in trying to glean a response from Mr Ellsberg. I’m sure he will be able to respond to your every point far more eloquently than me…. and, no, I have no particular association with him, other than my admiration of his courage as a whistle-blower and his genuine patriotism to a land I once believed in.

Chris April 7, 2011 at 5:34 pm

I don’t post my full name because that is my right.

There was nothing hate-filled nor emotional about my comments and the fact that you have not made reference to such alleged epithets indicates that you are attempting to bully and cajole. Is this what that teach in the military?
Hate filled Emotional comments by you:
1.) Obama has shown himself to be a rolled-gold coward from day one of his presidency in the way he has given in to conservative elements on nearly every issue. Either that, or he is a kind of “manchurian candidate”, planted by the extreme right and who lied his way into office in the guise of a leftist reformer. It is Orwellian in scope.
2.) You, on the other hand, are mounting red herrring, legal-technical arguments to justify the unjustifiable: the detention and torture of a person who has not been either tried or convicted, but is, in fact, being remanded without trial.
3.) Now you’re backtracking. You’ve endorsed the possibility Manning is being mistreated, affectively supporting at least a part of my argument. Illegal treatment by his plaintiffs, alone, makes his trial unbonifide.

Nor has anything I have written been an attack on you. [Accusing me of “mounting a red herring legal technical argument is an attack. Accusing me of homophobia is an attack. Every thing that you write comes across as an attack on something, usually an unnamed something.] I was merely pointing out your homophobic comments re Manning being irrelevant to his case. Tarring Manning with being homosexual as a kind of black mark is a pure ad hominem attack on him by you.
How is saying he is homosexual tarring him? You might want to look in the mirror. I simply pointed out his bad environment growing up and made the point that his homosexuality probably served to make a bad situation worse as Oklahoma is not known for being a place where acceptance of difference is accepted or even publicly allowed. Especially homosexuality would be vilified and looked down upon thus creating more isolation and resentment in him. Having no supportive community in ones formative years is not conducive to making a stable well-adjusted adult. DADT also probably added to this sense of isolation reinforcing his insular beliefs. If he had been able to open up to just one person and share what he was thinking, this whole thing would likely have gone down a lot differently and he might not even have been arrested. That is the relevance of his upbringing, and I suspect it will play a large part in his defense team plans.

On the contrary, your posts are replete with emotional rants and hate-filled jibes. I suggest that you are a bully who wishes to provoke a response from Mr Ellsberg. I hope Mr Ellsberg continues to ignore you.

I’m not sure what this last paragraph is about I’m guessing you want to feel allied to Mr. Ellsberg. Yes I’d like a response from Mr. Ellsberg that is why I asked a question of him.
And yes like I poke fun and make jibes at morons like Palin and Dubyah I am also poking fun at you for your wanton ignorance. And yes that is a shot at you. Somehow in our nation the pursuit of “feel good” ideas and sloganeering has trumped the pursuit of truth and thinking.
The world is not black and white and your lack of thought and nuance is very apparent in your commentary.
I have an exercise for you to think about which may give you a different view of the people you find it so easy to vilify. Try to control your initial impulse to respond to me and just think about the problem as stated. I can see how this might be turned back on me yet it is a very instructive exercise. It isn’t meant to be a direct correlation but to demonstrate how good people can do bad things.
Imagine yourself being forced under threat to loved ones or yourself to steal or to stay silent about something very serious. Fact is if there was a gun in your face or a credible threat to yourself or others you’d be very foolish and an unusual person not to comply.
Now long after it has happened and you’ve started to live as normally as you can again and you think it’s all behind you someone points out that you stayed silent about something very serious or stole something from someone who was a very sympathetic victim.
Is it wrong for people to vilify you? You did do these things. Or should they take into consideration the fact of the threats against you? Are you a bad person for doing this even though it was to prevent greater harm?
They won’t you know. Like how you paint “the government” with a broad brush instead of naming the individuals who are responsible for any particular action, so you would be painted by those who are currently apparent allies and like “thinkers”. They’ll just assume, as you have made assumptions about me, that you are some scumbag who was faking all along and now is trying to get out from under having been caught.
The difference between you and I is that I directed my comments at what you said; you directed your comments at what you think I meant. That is two different things. If you don’t see this I suggest you find a way to learn to. Addressing what I meant being wrong as mind reading is not possible.

Its an idea for you to consider before you once again make assumptions and accusations about someone you do not know with no facts to back up what you say. I think you are motivated by the right intentions but somewhere in your upbringing you have been lead astray into the minefield of human ignorance where people mistake feelings for thought and intent for reason. I was very serious about you taking a logic class and probably a English 1A class wouldn’t hurt either.

Peace

Michael Rapson April 7, 2011 at 12:25 am

@ Chris (who won’t post his full name)

There was nothing hate-filled nor emotional about my comments and the fact that you have not made reference to such alleged epithets indicates that you are attempting to bully and cajole. Is this what that teach in the military?

Nor has anything I have written been an attack on you. I was merely pointing out your homophobic comments re Manning being irrelevant to his case. Tarring Manning with being homosexual as a kind of black mark is a pure ad hominem attack on him by you.

On the contrary, your posts are replete with emotional rants and hate-filled jibes. I suggest that you are a bully who wishes to provoke a response from Mr Ellsberg. I hope Mr Ellsberg continues to ignore you.

Chris April 6, 2011 at 11:42 pm

Mr Rapson,
You may want to take a class in logic and how to argue as your assertions follow no logic and this last attack on me is more of the same.
Allowing for the possibility doesn’t mean anything but that. Your over emotional rantings and unthinking support for something that makes you feel good to think you’re right for believing in it, doesn’t mean you are good or even right. In fact it is pretty much proof you are not good and wrong.

Unreasoned hate like yours is the same motivation that drove those who enforced jim crow, subjugate women, and any other form of irrational bigotry based in compensating for personal insecurity.
Again; Strong feeling does not make you right or indicate anything other than strong feeling.

Michael Rapson April 6, 2011 at 11:46 am

@Chris. You said:

“With no proof of his situation and my personal knowledge of the military it is possible he is being treated badly but I don’t think it likely.”

Now you’re backtracking. You’ve endorsed the possibility Manning is being mistreated, affectively supporting at least a part of my argument. Illegal treatment by his plaintiffs, alone, makes his trial unbonifide.
By the way, what has his sexual orientation and personal history to do with his case?

Chris April 5, 2011 at 8:16 pm

To Mr. Rapson,
Your comments are wrong. You should not accuse me of things that are not there. As wirth most of the people who blindly support Mr Manning, you are imaginative and emotional in your remarks, you lack reason and fact. Strong feeling does not a fact make.

“Surely it was Bradley Manning’s moral conscience that prompted him to expose the abuses he saw?” How is it Mr Manning had done this based on moral conscience when he doesn’t even know what he gave away? How could he have “seen abuses”? He was stationed in an office.

“You, on the other hand, are mounting red herrring, legal-technical arguments to justify the unjustifiable: the detention and torture of a person who has not been either tried or convicted, but is, in fact, being remanded without trial.”
I am not raising red herrings or technicalities, only facts. I have not justified anything, I didn’t even comment on his pretrial confinement.

Mr Manning who has never been stable in his life and was getting more and more unstable as time went on according to Frontline, was acting out again in what is often considered a silent unknowing request for help (almost always self destructive) and he connected with another lifelong unstable man, Julian Assange. As with all untreated lifelong unstable people, each span of time between outbursts is simply the buildup to the next breakdown, not a gaining of stability as often it is mistaken for.
Mr Manning had the misfortune of growing up with a dad who was from what I saw on that interview, likely mentally bullied and abused as a boy himself. Add to that his homosexuality and his locale a place not known for acceptance, his stepmother with whom he locked horns regularly and you see the makings of this situation. Bradley Manning wasn’t dealt a great hand, and he played what he had badly.
As for his confinement, he is in pretrial custody. He has an attorney. He is victim of the lawyers mantra delay,delay,delay more than anything else.
With no proof of his situation and my personal knowledge of the military it is possible he is being treated badly but I don’t think it likely.

Chris April 5, 2011 at 7:46 pm

Mr. Rapson,

Surely it was Bradley Manning’s moral conscience that prompted him to expose the abuses he saw?
You, on the other hand, are mounting red herrring, legal-technical arguments to justify the unjustifiable: the detention and torture of a person who has not been either tried or convicted, but is, in fact, being remanded without trial.

Anonymous April 5, 2011 at 7:44 pm

Mr Rapson,
Responding to your post making bad argument and false accusations against me.
“Surely it was Bradley Manning’s moral conscience that prompted him to expose the abuses he saw?”
First Mr Manning “saw” nothing anywhere but in his imagination. He is a broken child who became a broken man never once showing a “moral conscience”. He was never stable at any time in his life and this instability showed itself in his acting out to get attention by giving away these documents to yet another lifelong disturbed individual Julain Assange.
He released documents which he knew nothing about and didn’t even read so even if he was someone with a conscience (somethign I submit would have stopped him from doing what he did) he couldn’t use that as justification here since he knew not what he gave away.

“You, on the other hand, are mounting red herrring, legal-technical arguments to justify the unjustifiable: the detention and torture of a person who has not been either tried or convicted, but is, in fact, being remanded without trial.”
My arguments are not red herring and technical, they are simply factual. I am mounting nothing and have not in anyway justified anything. BTW Mr Manning is being held awaiting trial. He has an attorney and the process is going forward. He is victim of the lawyers delay, delay, delay mantra more than anything else. He is also a military man which makes him subject to Military law not civilian law. Military law is much more restrictive than civilian law.
I don’t know about his confinement, I suspect it isn’t as bad as it is claimed and not as good as the Pentagon would have us believe.

And still we haven’t heard from Mr Ellsberg here on how he sees the glaring differences between his own actions and and Mr Manning’s.

chris April 5, 2011 at 7:31 pm

Mr Rapson,

Nicholas Teeny April 5, 2011 at 7:04 am

Dear Dr. Ellsberg: Thank you so much for coming up to Portland, OR today, 4-4-11, and speaking at my Alma Mater, Lewis and Clark College. It was a real thrill to meet you and hear your words. You have been a hero of mine for 40 years, and are a great American and a major figure in our history. You’ll always have a special place in the hearts of Vietnam Veterans such as myself!
And I hope you have a great birthday on Thursday.
All the very best, Nicholas Teeny, Portland, Oregon

Michael Rapson April 2, 2011 at 6:49 am

@Chris March 29, 2011 at 12:07 am

Surely it was Bradley Manning’s moral conscience that prompted him to expose the abuses he saw?
You, on the other hand, are mounting red herrring, legal-technical arguments to justify the unjustifiable: the detention and torture of a person who has not been either tried or convicted, but is, in fact, being remanded without trial.
According to the principles established by the Nuremberg conventions, Bradley Manning did the right thing by speaking out against military abuses by his own side. It was at the Nuremberg nazi trials that such conventions were established to suport soldiers who wished to expose war crimes.

Michael Rapson April 2, 2011 at 2:03 am

Bradley Manning is a political prisoner who is being mistreated with the full and shameless endorsement of the president. Obama has shown himself to be a rolled-gold coward from day one of his presidency in the way he has given in to conservative elements on nearly every issue. Either that, or he is a kind of “manchurian candidate”, planted by the extreme right and who lied his way into office in the guise of a leftist reformer. It is Orwellian in scope.

roy dahlin March 31, 2011 at 3:48 am

Elsberg writes so well, mahalo, thank you for your patriotism and activism. On a statement made by P.J. Crowley, Frm. State dept. spokesman aired 29 Mar. ‘11.

On occasion of the 100th anniversary of the adoption of the Model 1911, semi-auto, .45 Auto, Colt pistol by the U.S.A.

I want to correct the misnomer uttered by one P.J. Crowley on your news broadcast of 29 Mar. ’11.

The private citizen stated in error that PFC Bradley Manning had violated his oath of office by allegedly releasing the sheaf of classified U.S. documents.

I believe from earlier accounts, Manning has brought to the attention of his superiors the belief that possible crimes were being perpetrated by service members and civilian officials. By accounts he was told that it was none of his business or to ignore it and get back to work or what he was doing.

First, he believed that he was witnessing crimes in progress or in the past. Though the purported documents were classified, they represented or demonstrated crimes committed by certain individuals implicated therein.

There is a doctrine called the Nuremburg Doctrine where a combatant or any individual must refuse to obey an unlawful order. I believe Manning may have felt that he could not cover-up crimes committed or what he believed to be crimes.

Second, he is obligated to turn over information of crimes which he attempted to and being rejected he allegedly turned them over to a whistle blowing entity. That is called and he attempted to comply under misprision of felony. T18 U.S.C. § 4.

Lastly, his oath of office is to uphold the U.S. Constitution and to overcome enemies both foreign and domestic. There is nothing in his oath to keep secret any crime(s) committed but to uphold the law of the land.

I do appreciate this honorable man for speaking out against this unlawful gov’t. actions and giving up his dubious career in the imperial national security fascist plutocratic police state.

Chris March 29, 2011 at 12:07 am

Dear Mr. Ellsberg,
I have always admired you for what you did so I was alarmed when I heard you supported Mr Manning in his treachery. Somehow you have missed the differences in what you did and what he did.
As I understand it you had a crisis of conscience after reading the PP, which involved you consulting many others with minds anyone else would respect and when your final decision was made you had help to copy the items from people such as Senator Ed Kennedy’s staff. Mr. Manning on the other hand, who has never exhibited any signs of a moral conscience or having the maturity to develop one, simply decided that he was going to make public a bunch of our secret information because he alone thought it deserved to be public, then copied reems of it, far more than you did with help, and then he just gave it up to a stranger. He had no consultation with a trusted friend with known ability in the field, he made no complaint about the information contained in the files to his superiors or to a reporter (mr. assange is many things but reporter is not one of them), in fact as far as we can tell he didn’t even read any of what he gave away! There is no way he can claim moral justification as you did since he just opened the file cabinet and allowed a stranger of whom he knew very little full access. Mr. Manning simply copied as much secret information as he could (info to which he was not entitled, you were cleared to read the Pentagon Papers as I recall) then gave it away with glee. Having no thought for the damage he might be doing us. You saved lives by releasing the PP, Mr Manning has taken lives and will continue to do so for many years to come.

My question is how is it you have missed these central factual differences between yourself and Mr Manning? I think you may have lost some of that careful thinking ability you had as my minimal ability saw this problem first thing.

As for what he gave away, there are no crimes committed by the US revealed, only assumptions, imaginings and accusations. All of it that I have seen from the much ballyhooed video which in spite or mr. assange’s propaganda meant to undermine and vilify the US, shows men armed with AK’s and RPG’s. Weapons that would make them combatants (per the intelligence that sent the pilots there) as no civilian has the need for such weapons even in Iraq. To the false accusations of bacha bazi boys being used by contractors. Reported by assange in a way to make it seem sex and sexual exploitation of children had taken place when it was dancing at a party only, and that because of the mistaken perception by the foreigner who hired them that this was correct behavior.
Nothing that assange and his moron minions have reported from these papers shows anything but normal diplomatic activity and normal frank reports from diplomats. Nothing was being hidden but our diplomatic information.
I recomend that you apply the same mind that you aplied to the PP release to re checking the original information not the reports based on that information. I fear your trusting good nature is being taken advantage of.

Tom March 23, 2011 at 6:55 pm

Dennis Kucinich has a point when he recently talked about Obama being impeached for the illegal invasion of Libya. Now, the sad part. Where do you usually see him? Democracy Now, RT and occasionally on MSNBC.

This means that first, even someone like Kucinich, Barbara Lee or others in the Progressive Caucus will only go so far in speaking out. So far, Kucinich has repeatedly sad that there’s a difference between investigating grounds for and actually implementing impeachment proceedings. But realistically ask this question. Would the Democratic leadership actually follow thru on that? Not a chance.

Why? Because, contrary to their nice soundbites, many of them support perpetuating Bush II’s policies. The “war on terror’. Not pissing off AIPAC. Obama is no different.

This means that when the “official” 2012 campaign starts, the corporate MSM will NEVER push Obama on terrorism, violating intl. law, torture of Manning and others and more. That’s considered “unpatriotic”. That could get you fired. It doesn’t matter that foreign journalists actually do their job. Here, you keep your mouth shut and maybe Obama will call on you. Otherwise, you’re blackballed just like Helen Thomas was. That’s considered perfectly acceptable.

Could you call Obama a war criminal? Based on many things that he’s done so far, yes you could. Despite that, even if he’s a one-term President, what will happen? Like all the others he’ll be set for life with Secret Service protection, books, lecture tours and all the rest of it. Here, war criminals are actually rewarded for breaking the law. The MSM endlessly condemns Gadaffi as a war criminal. Yet, NEVER do they say the same thing about Obama, Bush II, Bush I, Clinton or even Carter.

Why? Because we just don’t do that sort of thing, thanks very much.

herb davis March 18, 2011 at 9:15 pm

If you can avoid prosecuting war crimes a little tolerance of unjust detention seems like a minor issue. He is in charge of the illegal wars and occupations and seems like a different fellow than the one who spoke on election eve.

Leave a Comment