After nearly two years in isolation and captivity, Bradly Manning has been ordered to face a court martial. The million or so words soon to be written about Manning and his order to court martial have about as much relevance to the conclusion of the affair as your next exhalation does to the luminosity of Betelgeuse. You already know the outcome. Goat, scaped. Every last bit of commentary, including this stupid blog blurgh, is already wasted. If Manning doesn't get the needle, he'll probably never see the outside of Leavenworth again.
Remember that the next time you're compelled to martial your own court of judgment in favor of a misplaced faith in "good law."
Crow's Eye: Maintaining a commitment to Pointless Acrimony™ and Hate Filled Invective™! Also available in corvid mischief and traditional sly dog's mistrust.
10 comments:
Who's the last one they needled for crimes against the State, McVeigh? Won't surprise me if they equate the two and take similar action.
It's entirely possible that Manning is complicit in a scam (a false flag operation with both Assange and Manning complicit).
I haven't followed Manning's legal case that closely, but as in the case of the underwear bomber, didn't Manning fail to fully assert his rights?
Check out the amazing story of a witness to the underwear bombing incident on Christmas day and his belief that the defendant cooperated with the government both before and after the bombing and suspects that he will not actually have to go to prison:
http://haskellfamily.blogspot.com/2011/09/colossal-deceit-known-as-underwear.html
Likewise, isn't Manning in solitary confinement? Aren't they making it impossible for him to take visitors? Maybe he doesn't really exits or maybe he's not even being held there?
Btw, some people think the same thing about Tim McVeigh. See here for instance: http://endtheilluminaticonspiracy.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/timothy-mcveigh-still-alive/ (I can't find the source I was looking at the other day but this hits the same points)
The law is a bell jar, a life-sucking vacuum, but its glass has been painted opaquely. Decorum must be observed.
A trial is like a mathematical proof. The desired result is known: it's just a matter of arriving at the formula. Why would a mathematical proof be required when most people wouldn't give a damn? Decorum must be observed.
The prosecutors, one reads, are not seeking the penalty of death. Humanitarianism is out of the question; they must want him alive for some other reason. He appears to have told all he knows, but this isn't the same as telling them all they want to hear. Wikileaks, of course, is the target. Manning and Assange are merely target practice.
It isn't as if Manning's life will be spared to prevent public unease. The majority, if they think about him at all, want him to suffer and die. It appears they are to be partly disappointed.
Innocence before proven guilt? A metaphysical concern. Obama, as Greenwald pointed out, has declared Manning guilty. A demonstration, if any more were needed, of the verdict when it comes; and yet another reason, if any more were needed, that Obama is beneath contempt.
Bradley Manning will be walled up for the rest of his life. This fate will perhaps include solitary confinement. If you're entirely opposed to the death penalty, as I am, you can't help but often reproach yourself with cruelty. If I were in his place, I would prefer execution.
But the show trials of Russia were truly terrible.
Zen,
Have to disagree this time around. McVeigh killed. That's usually sufficient for a grand entrance by lictors and the bundled fasces, and in McVeigh's case, Clinton did not disappoint. The sanctity of a fiction, "the State," was met with the reality of some fertilizer and gasoline. The State was damaged, as concepts go. Weakness had been demonstrated. Unpreparedness, also. The mood was ripe with terrorism, and McVeigh left Clinton with egg on his face. McVeigh answered Waco, and that could not be left to collect dust. So, McVeigh was always going to die, and to all accounts, did so with his boots on.
Manning is qualitatively different. And a variant on a different theme. Had he been a traditional spy, say filching for the Israelis, they might equate him with a danger to the State itself, and move on in a customary fashion.
But I don't think whoever is in control of Manning's fate can afford that approach. Manning didn't weaken the State. He revealed what was already there: susceptibility to conscience. That's why the propaganda angle, I believe, was set in stone from the moment his name was known. According to the storyline, Manning didn't hurt the State. Instead, he put brave soldiers and trusted allies in harms way. Manning was portrayed as a weak-willed, feminized faggot who betrayed to assuage his own vanity and faggoty femininity. That signals a course of action which must end, in the end, in his humiliation, and then his inevitable Lindhization. Like Lindh, Manning is already being cast as a woman. As a womanish follower who needs to taken hold of and shaken into manly sense.
To remember Bradley Manning as anything else is to remember an act of conscience. He wasn't filching data for a rival, for reasons of state, or for money.
He did it to hurt the idea of war. A soldier, against modern war's assault on conscience.
And that sort of man cannot be immortalized with the procession of lictors and their bundled fasces. He has to get moldy. And be forgotten. He has to be the faithless woman, confined to her cage.
Walter,
I waited a bit to reply, because my initial reaction was to politely scoff. I'm wary of conspiracies which require (a) a completely competent cadres (b) who cannot however manage to keep their conspiracy quiet or unknown.
I'm not saying that's what you're doing here. It just colors my read of the byzantium of thought that tends to accrue to too-complex conspiracism.
That written, I have no doubt that you are correct about Manning being softened up as a prelude to shunting Assange off into a nightmare of prosecution. And Assange hasn't done himself or Wikileaks any favors, in that area.
antonello,
I think we read this the same way, mostly. As I commented above, I see a visible effort to feminize Manning, as well. A womanish man has deeply personal flaws which don't have anything to do with conscience and state and war, y'know.
(/sarcasm)
fish,
Heh. The Russians never had anything on the US. They were too clumsy with their foregone conclusions. I wager by the time Manning's dispensation is known, enough doubt will have been cast on his guilt and/or sanity, in the corporate press, to make the outcome seem both pristine and fair.
You're probably right about how it plays out, but at the same time, it won't surprise me if they execute him (after the elections, naturally), or if he "commits suicide" while in custody.
Yeah Jack. I have only recently started opening up to the more elaborate conspiracy theories and I can relate to your reaction.
Thanks for your patience.
But I am starting to think much more of our reality is manufactured than I previously realized.
In part, I have come to this conclusion because the conspirators ARE INDEED incompetent and leaving clues. There is indeed evidence out there we are just conditioned to ignore it.
For instance, did you read the blog post linked above about the witness to the underwear bombing incident? That blew my mind (no pun intended).
He makes the same accusations I am speculating about here and he just happened to be an important witness in that case! It's not like he set out looking for conspiracies. But now he has lost complete faith in our government and the media because of his involvement as a witness and as a lawyer he was more attuned the sketchiness of the case.
I think we should learn from experiences like this and be more skeptical.
He makes some excellent points about the underwear bomber not asserting his rights in a way that is HIGHLY unusual. He could have pursued an entrapment defense which would have had a very good chance of succeeding with the lawyer's testimony! But the defendant drops his best defense and fires his lawyer before the trial and basically plays the crazy terrorist role.
The lawyer witness is speculating the government is prosecuting a fake case where the convicted won't have to go to prison!
I don't know the truth about Manning and don't even think my speculation is probable . . . but the odds have increased b/c of the similar MO to other incidents.
How could it have taken years for Manning to get a preliminary hearing? The speedy trial provision is one of the few rights the courts still respect (sure, they have whittled this right down, but it's still pretty strong). If Manning was being tortured (which is more probable than my 'conspiracy theory'), via drugs and solitary confinement and other methods (like stripping, etc.), then why didn't his lawyers push to have a trial ASAP? Yeah, I've heard the excuses and I'm not convinced.
Also, his defense at the preliminary hearing seemed sketchy to me. He appears to have a good defense based on the fact there is very little evidence against him and some of the evidence looks like it was doctored (the chat logs--the best evidence against him). Normally, at a preliminary hearing the defense will pick at this evidence rather than making sweeping arguments like Manning's lawyers apparently did. I don't know, maybe this was a good strategy or I'm misreading what happened--but it just seemed slightly odd to me.
It also seems odd that it's been so hard to visit Manning. I know it seems crazy that Manning would be complicit and not even be held in prison (or have some awesome suite where he hangs out and plays video games), but this is exactly why it can be an effective strategy! I now firmly believe our government is doing Big Lies like this in other areas (as I believe happened with 9/11, and happened in Libya, and now Syria and Iran).
Like I say, it's probably more likely that Manning did it and he's being used as an example or to go after Assange. Or maybe he's a patsy, the spooks saw he was gay and hanging with some "hackers" so they took the opportunity to leak the Wikileaks documents and pin in on Manning.
Maybe my conspiracy theory is the third most likely, but again, this theory is rising imho.
p.s. the riff about Manning not even existing may be too far over the top, and I borrowed it from those that make a convincing case (imho) that many of the images we saw on 9/11 were fake and many (if not all) of the victims were fake (simulated victims--vicsims--ha).
The Russians never had anything on the US. They were too clumsy with their foregone conclusions.
You could be right, but I wouldn't underestimate the power of crude propaganda. I was amazed talking with some older Chinese folks who talked with fond remembrance of their time during the Cultural Revolution.
Post a Comment