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

By: Katherine

Katherine — Wed, 18 May 2011 18:12:42 +0000

You are truly an inspiration!

By: John Hendry

John Hendry — Wed, 11 May 2011 22:47:29 +0000

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

John Hendry^^

By: David Collins

David Collins — Tue, 03 May 2011 18:57:11 +0000

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.

By: A. Benway

A. Benway — Sat, 30 Apr 2011 01:20:07 +0000

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…

By: Miriam Hill

Miriam Hill — Fri, 29 Apr 2011 18:38:44 +0000

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

By: A. Benway

A. Benway — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 20:10:15 +0000

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…

By: Sherry Reedy

Sherry Reedy — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 06:11:38 +0000

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.

By: David Honig

David Honig — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 21:05:59 +0000

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.

By: Michael Rapson

Michael Rapson — Fri, 08 Apr 2011 01:03:57 +0000

@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.

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 17:34:29 +0000

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