Darkness at Noon

  If you root for different teams,
Waste no time, weep no more,
Show him what the door is for.
Rub him out of the roll call
And drum him out of your dreams 
--I'm Gonna Wash That Man Right Outta My Hair, 
South Pacific

  It's only because of their stupidity
that they're able to be so sure of themselves 
--The Trial, Franz Kafka
____________________

On National Public Radio's "Friday News Roundup" with Diane Rehm yesterday came a glaring example of news bias that passed right under the radar.

Edward Snowdon, the National Security Association leaker, was being discussed, mostly in a dismissive manner as if to parrot President Obama's lead. Anne Gearan, diplomatic correspondent for the Washington Post made passing reference to -- "that Wikileaks man who is on trial this week."

Just like that, a supposedly trusted journo goes from a disinterested posture to one of damnation and dismissal, consigning Bradley Manning to the rubbish bin of irrelevance. And host Rehm, who usually takes the high road filling in the blank for her guests, failed to do so this time.

"That man" is Bradley Manning, whose trial is being robustly ignored by the press. That is a great shame, when our press has space to consider how Kate Winslet's third child by a third man (bet there have been others) might signal the downfall of civilization, and just where is Kim Kardashian's child (she of the monumental ass, her claim to fame.)

PFC Manning's trial should be a serious story, if we were a serious people. Sorry Bradley, but we are not, and that was your major mistake. RangerAgainstWar hopes you do not disappear into some gulag, but alas, the United States is not the Sunshine State you thought we were.

Who Do You Love?

For it may be said of men in general that they are
ungrateful, voluble, dissemblers,
anxious to avoid danger and covetous of gain 
--The Prince, Machiavelli 

Got no privacy, got no liberty
Cos the twentieth century people
Took it all away from me
--20th Century Man, the Kinks

 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil;
that put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
--Isaiah 5:20 (KJV) 
____________________

Bradley Manning is finally getting his day in court, after 1,000 days of confinement, often solitary, without any charges. Manning's case reminds Ranger of that of Lt. William Calley, in an inverse sort of way.

On March 16, 1968, during the Vietnam War (that quaint, post-colonial dust-up), the My Lai Massacre was carried out by United States troops under the command of Lt. William L. Calley Jr. Lt. Calley was indicted for his role in the murder of 109 Vietnamese civilians and convicted in the murder of 22, but he was revered at home and considered something of a folk hero for many. He was placed under simple house arrest in advance of his trial, and it was well known that his female guests were many, and they came and went in file during his time in house detention. 

Calley was sentenced to time in Leavenworth doing hard labor, but his life sentence was shortened considerably, and he never saw a day in jail; ultimately, he spent 3 1/2 years in house arrest in his quarters in Ft. Benning, Georgia. (Democratic President-to-be and sometime World Humanitarian Jimmy Carter was one of Calley's champions.) Compare the treatment of murderer Calley to that of Manning, who could be described as a whistleblower, and who will take Calley's place in Leavenworth.

Bradley Manning did not pull a trigger or commit any act of violence. Manning did not sell the documents he accused of trafficking, but instead approached The Washington Post and The New York Times; when these newspapers rejected him, he sent the material anonymously to WikiLeaks. He has been charged with aiding the enemy, but the charge is rather Kafkaesque as we cannot define our enemy, nor have we met them on a major battlefield.  Assuming al-Qaeda is the enemy, how can Manning be said to aid the enemy if there is no battlefield?

Just as with Kelly's fellows, the service members shooting civilians from the gunships in Manning's leaked video have never been court-martialed for their actions.  Who aids the enemy more: Manning's Wikileaks or the actions of soldiers in rogue gunships, a President who calls for lethal drone strikes and secret renditions of surmised enemies to foreign prisons for torture, and the whole lot of extrajudicial behavior which has become institutionalized in the Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©)? 

The recruitment value of torture and illegal policies is high, and they are a better fundraiser for the terrorist's cause than any reasoned response might have been.  Calley's inhumane actions hastened the end of the Vietnam War as Americans were repulsed by the killings of civilians.

Chris Hedges take on Manning's trial is worth a view (here).  In his conclusion, Hedges states:

Manning has done what anyone with a conscience should have done. In the courtroom he exhibited—especially given the prolonged abuse he suffered during his thousand days inside the military prison system—poise, intelligence and dignity. He appealed to the best within us. And this is why the government fears him. America still produces heroes, some in uniform. But now we lock them up.

Today, a mere 45 years later, The U.S. does not seem to care.

Manning Overboard

When the people are being beaten
with a stick, they are not much happier
if it is called "the People's Stick
--Statism and Anarchy (1873) Mikhail Bakunin

And if you can take a man's life
for the thoughts that's in his head
Then won't you sit back in that chair
and think it over judge one more time
--Johnny 99, Bruce Springsteen

Are you gonna pull those pistols
or whistle Dixie?
--Outlaw Josie Wales (1976)
__________________

Why is Bradley Manning being held in punitive and vengeful Federal custody? What is his crime, or alleged crime?

It cannot be espionage or treason. It is even hard to call it spying, so what is it, exactly? If Manning is such a threat, why hasn't WikiLeaks, founder Julian Assange or anyone else associated with this incident been indicted as co-conspirators? Why is Manning the only one in Federal prison? Why were none of his superiors charged with failure to secure classified data?

Manning was recently transferred to Ft. Leavenworth Correctional Facility, a Federal prison. Not only was Manning held in isolation for five months in the Marine Corps brig in Quantico where he was subjected to possible human rights violations and certainly held without recourse to a speedy trial, he is now being imprisoned without having been adjudicated guilty by any court, not even a kangaroo one.

Why this pre-trail confinement, which appears as open-ended as the Middle East campaigns? Further, why hasn't Manning's legal team filed a writ of habeas corpus? Manning's condition is similar to that of the Guantanamo Bay detainees -- try them or release them; there is no middle ground. Manning is a U.S. citizen, and if he can be jacked around by the legal system, so too can anyone.

We owe to the rule of law to try Manning or release him -- if murderers can get a speedy trial, so can Manning. Our system of jurisprudence demands this small token of respect for U.S. legal thought, traditions and practice.

Let the Sun Shine

Christo Komarnitski (Bulgaria)

[B]ut there are also unknown unknowns
-- the ones we don't know we don't know
--Donald Rumsfeld

You have no respect for excessive authority
or obsolete traditions.
You're dangerous and depraved,
and you ought to be taken outside and shot!
--Catch-22, Joseph Heller

Light is sweet,
and it pleases the eyes to see the sun
--Ecclesiastes 11:7

I'm sick and tired of hearing things
From uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocrites
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth
--Give Me Some Truth, John Lennon

You see what no one else can see,
and now I'm breaking free.
For your eyes only, only for you
--For Your Eyes Only, Sheena Easton
_________________

Per the most recent Wikileaks, the White House said,

"Such disclosures put at risk our diplomats, intelligence professionals and people around the world who come to the U.S. for assistance in promoting democracy and open government."

Wrap your mind around that for a moment. The U.S. government is bound in secrecy, yet espouses "democracy and open government". This is a no-go theorem. The U.S. government is open to a select group which is privy to the details, the group which conducts back room deals and signs secret treaties -- a professional class, beyond citizen supervision. It is from these events that wars are sprung.

How has democracy arrived at the point that truth must be classified and digested by an anointed class which then determines what we, the canaille, can view? Is truth so fungible that it can't be displayed without an official redaction?

How can we claim a democracy if our citizens are uninformed concerning the actions of our leaders? Secret budgets and hearings, secret prisons and programs do not comport with an open society. Is secrecy now integral to democracy? If so, how do we differ from all the other -ISMS, to include terrorism, for the basis of all terrorism -- whether state-sponsored or individual -- is secrecy?

The reliance on secrecy tags the U.S. as a reactive player on the world scene. If we were leaders, the truth would be something with which other players would be required to deal. Reaction to truth should be a definition of policy, but that is the exact opposite of the Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©)

The PWOT © is and was based upon deception, lies and illegality, and that's neither a lie nor a secret.