[governance] (Tangential) As Bradley Manning Trial Begins, Press Predictably Misses the Point

Sun Jun 9 06:32:23 EDT 2013

Some more context for recent spying revelations... this soldier was 
subject to cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment according to an UN 
rapporteur. Emphasis in bold added.

As Bradley Manning Trial Begins, Press Predictably Misses the Point 
<http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/276-74/17814-focus-as-bradley-manning-trial-begins-press-predictably-misses-the-point>

By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

07 June 13

ell, the Bradley Manning trial has begun, and for the most part, the 
government couldn't have scripted the headlines any better.

In the now-defunct Starz series Boss, there's a reporter character named 
"Sam Miller" played by actor Troy Garity who complains about lazy 
reporters who just blindly eat whatever storylines are fed to them by 
people in power. He called those sorts of stories Chumpbait. If the 
story is too easy, if you're doing a piece on a sensitive topic and 
factoids are not only reaching you freely, but publishing them is 
somehow not meeting much opposition from people up on high, then you're 
probably eating Chumpbait.

There's an obvious Chumpbait angle in the Bradley Manning story, and 
most of the mainstream press reports went with it. You can usually tell 
if you're running a Chumpbait piece if you find yourself writing the 
same article as 10,000 other hacks.

The Trials of Bradley Manning

*The Trials of Bradley Manning* 
<http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-trials-of-bradley-manning-20130314>

The CNN headline 
<http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/02/us/manning-court-martial/index.html> read 
as follows: "Hero or Traitor? Bradley Manning's Trial to Start Monday." 
NBC went with 
<http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/03/18725324-contrasting-portraits-of-bradley-manning-as-court-martial-opens?lite> 
"Contrasting Portraits of Bradley Manning as Court-Martial Opens." Time 
magazine's Denver Nicks took this original approach 
<http://ideas.time.com/2013/06/05/viewpoint-our-real-secrecy-problem/#ixzz2VNWKyjq8> 
in their "think" piece on Manning, "Bradley Manning and our Real Secrecy 
Problem":

    /Is he a traitor or a hero? This is the question surrounding Bradley
    Manning, the army private currently being court-martialed at Fort
    Meade for aiding the enemy by wrongfully causing defense information
    to published on the Internet./

The Nicks thesis turned out to be one chosen by a lot of editorialists 
at the Manning trial, who have decided that the "real story" in the 
Manning case is what this incident showed about our lax security 
procedures, our lack of good due diligence in vetting the folks we put 
in charge of our vital information.

"With so many poorly protected secrets accessible to so many people, it 
was only a matter of time," Nicks wrote. "We can be grateful that 
Bradley Manning rather than someone less charitably inclined perpetrated 
this leak."

Dr. Tim Johnson of the Telegraph took a similar approach, only he was 
even less generous 
<http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100220149/bradley-manning-traitor-whistleblower-victim-of-obamas-bullying-and-a-terrible-gay-icon/> 
than Nicks, calling Manning the "weirdo [who] tried to bring down the 
government," a man who was "guilty as hell" and "deserves to do time."

"Private Manning was a self-absorbed geek who should never have enjoyed 
the level of access that he did," Johnson wrote. He went on to argue 
that Manning's obvious personality defects should have disqualified him 
for sensitive duty, and the fact that he was even hired in the first 
place is the real scandal of this trial:

    /His personality breakdown was there for all to see
    <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11874276> -- criticising
    US policy on Facebook, telling friends, "Bradley Manning is not a
    piece of equipment", and even entertaining "a very internal private
    struggle with his gender". He told hacker Adrian Lamo that he
    "listened and lip-synced to Lady Gaga's Telephone while exfiltrating
    possibly the largest data spillage in American history." You go, girl./

All of this shit is disgraceful. It's Chumpbait.

If I was working for the Pentagon's PR department as a hired press 
Svengali, with my salary eating up some of the nearly five billion 
dollars the armed services spends annually 
<http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/05/pentagon-spending-billions-pr-sway-world-opinion/> 
on advertising and public relations, I would be telling my team to pump 
reporters over and over again with the same angle.

I would beat it into the head of every hack on this beat that the 
court-martial is about a troubled young man with gender identity 
problems, that the key issue of law here rests inside the mind of young 
PFC Manning, that the only important issue of fact for both a jury and 
the American people to decide is exactly the question in these headlines.

Is Manning a hero, or a traitor? Did he give thousands of files to 
Wikileaks out of a sense of justice and moral horror, or did he do it 
because he had interpersonal problems, because he couldn't keep his job, 
because he was a woman trapped in a man's body, because he was a 
fame-seeker, because he was lonely?

You get the press and the rest of America following that bouncing ball, 
and the game's over. Almost no matter what the outcome of the trial is, 
if you can convince the American people that this case is about mental 
state of a single troubled kid from Crescent, Oklahoma, then the 
propaganda war has been won already.

*Because in reality, this case does not have anything to do with who 
Bradley Manning is, or even, really, what his motives were. This case is 
entirely about the "classified" materials Manning had access to, and 
whether or not they contained widespread evidence of war crimes.*

*This whole thing, this trial, it all comes down to one simple equation. 
If you can be punished for making public a crime, then the government 
doing the punishing is itself criminal.*

*Manning, by whatever means, stumbled into a massive archive of evidence 
of state-sponsored murder and torture, and for whatever reason, he 
released it. The debate we should be having is over whether as a people 
we approve of the acts he uncovered that were being done in our names.*

Slate was one of the few outlets to approach the Manning trial in a way 
that made sense. Their story took the opportunity of the court-martial 
to remind all of us of the list of horrors Manning discovered, including 
<http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/06/04/bradley_manning_trial_10_revelations_from_wikileaks_documents_on_iraq_afghanistan.html> 
(just to name a very few):

  * During the Iraq War, U.S. authorities failed to investigate
    <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/22/iraq-war-logs-military-leaks>
    hundreds of reports of abuse, torture, rape, and murder by Iraqi
    police and soldiers, according to thousands of field reports...

  * There were 109,032 "violent deaths" recorded
    <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/22/true-civilian-body-count-iraq>
    in Iraq between 2004 and 2009, including 66,081 civilians. Leaked
    records from the Afghan War separately revealed coalition troops'
    alleged role
    <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/7909742/Afghanistan-war-logs-90000-classified-documents-revealed-by-Wikileaks.html>
    in killing at least 195 civilians in unreported incidents, one
    reportedly involving U.S. service members machine-gunning a bus,
    wounding or killing 15 passengers...

  * In Baghdad in 2007, a U.S. Army helicopter gunned down a group of
    civilians, including two Reuters news staff...

This last incident was the notorious video in which our helicopter 
pilots lit up a group of civilians, among other things wounding two 
children in a van, to which the pilots blithely commented 
<http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/04/06/us-iraq-usa-journalists-idUSTRE6344FW20100406>, 
"Well, it's their fault for bringing their kids into a battle."

Except that there had been no battle, none of the people on the street 
were armed, it was an attack from space for all these people knew -- and 
oh, by the way, we were in their country, thanks to a war that history 
has revealed to have been a grotesque policy error.

It's their fault for bringing their kids into a battle. It's lines like 
this, truly horrific stuff that's evidence of a kind of sociopathic 
breakdown of our society, that this trial should be about. Not Manning's 
personal life.

*Unfortunately, the American people would rather make it about Manning, 
because they know they were complicit in those and other murders, 
because they loudly brayed for war in Iraq for years, no matter how 
often and how loudly it was explained to them that Saddam Hussein and 
Osama bin Laden were not the same person.*

Hacks like Johnson reassure the public that they have the right to have 
the results of their own moral decisions kept well hidden from them. His 
kind of propaganda soothes people into believing that Manning was just a 
freak and a weirdo, a one-off kink in the machinery, who hopefully will 
be thrown in the hole forever or at least for a very long time, so that 
we don't have to hear about any of this awful stuff again. At the very 
least, according to Johnson, we shouldn't have to listen to anyone call 
Manning a hero:

    /At the centre of the storm is a person who one suspects should
    never have been in uniform, let along enjoying access to military
    intelligence, who has blundered into the history books by way of a
    personality crisis. Incredibly, some people actually want to
    celebrate him as a gay icon
    <http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/27/bradley-manning-sf-gay-pride>.
    Who next, the Kray twins?/

Wow. We're the ones machine-gunning children, and yet Manning is the one 
being compared to the murdering Kray twins? And Jesus, isn't being 
charged with the Espionage Act enough? Is Manning also being accused of 
not representing gay America skillfully enough on the dock?

Here's my question to Johnson: What would be the correct kind of person 
to have access to videos of civilian massacres? Who's the right kind of 
person to be let in the know about the fact that we systematically 
turned academics and other "suspects" over to the Iraqi military to be 
tortured? We want people who will, what, sit on this stuff? Apparently 
the idea is to hire the kind of person who will cheerfully help us keep 
this sort of thing hidden from ourselves.

The thing is, when it comes to things like the infamous "Collateral 
Murder" video, whether it's Bradley Manning or anyone else, any decent 
human being would have had an obligation to come forward. Presented with 
that material, you either become part of a campaign of torture and 
murder by saying nothing, or you have to make it public. Morally, 
there's no option.

Yes, Manning went beyond even that. One can definitely quibble about the 
volume of the material he released and the manner in which he released 
it. And I get that military secrets should, in a properly functioning 
society, be kept secret.

But when military secrets cross the line into atrocities, the act of 
keeping these secrets secret ceases to have much meaning.

The issues to be debated at this trial are massive in scope. They're 
about the character of the society we've all created, not the state of 
mind of one troubled Army private. If anyone tries to tell you anything 
else, he's selling you something.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130609/c408448f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: rsn-W.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 823 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130609/c408448f/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t