Glenn Greenwald, in his Own Words re Bradley Manning/Julian Assange...

[KoKo]

I know some of you here think that Glenn Greenwald doesn't have credibily and that Julian Assange and Bradley Manning are "Traitors" to America.

But, I would hope you would listen to this discussion from Democracy Now and how Glenn lays out his position that even Nixon's Attorney, John Mitchell..didn't go as far as our Dems are going in attacking Bradley Manning and now the new move by Obama Administration to tie Manning and Assange together to incarcerate both of them... Meaning that they would both get Gitmo Type Military Trials and not Civil Trials.

Both Manning and Assange, btw are Dual Citizens and NOT US CITIZENS.

Anyway, if those here have an "open mind" willing to listen to other viewpoints...this is an excellent watch.

There is a Transcript there for those who are hearing impared or who prefer to read rather than watch.

I thought both give a clear view as to what Constitutional Lawyer Glenn Greenwald is working on...despite those who try to pre-judge him..(calling him Libertarian, Rightist, Snake and Infiltrator into the Democratic Party).

Listen or Read and open your mind as to what he is saying. He is a Constitutional Lawyer who Practiced his profession ...up against a Constitutional Lawyer who took the Political Road to where he wanted to go.

His view is clearly laid out here... And, I don't hear "Libertarian or Right Wing" in anything he lays out...I hear a Citizen Lawyer laying out his case for Manning and by default Assange and a Lawyer trying to "Protect" the US Constitution/Bill of Rights" and not someone trying to subvert it like the Repugs and Blue Dogs who do not have Democratic American interests at their heart...but belong to the Corporate Class viewpoint.

This is an interesting view no matter where you are on the spectrum of your beliefs. An "Open Mind" to different viewpoints is the true Democracy...not the close-minded views of the Right Wing/Fundamentalist Right Wing/Think Tank Operated/Ayn Rand Devotees and Milton Friedmanomics Supporters who have created Bubble Stock Markets and Ruin for over 40 Years!

VIDEO AND TRANSCRIPT AT THIS SITE:

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/4/29/glenn_greenwald_obamas_comments_on_bradley

[RandomThoughts]

1. Function not data.

If they can't prosecute him legitimately, they have to admit there whole system is wrong.

Stakes go up.



Sounds a bit like being on death ground also from Sun Tzu, I find that interesting in the art of war view of it.

:shrug:

It is fascinating.


I think someone should send him beer and travel money, but that's my view on it.

[Smarmie Doofus]

2. K and R nt

[NavyDem]

3. Question

What countries does Assange hold citizenship in? the US is not one of them. As for Manning, though dual status as British and US citizen is irrelevant to the charges or trial. Manning is being tried by a military court because he is in the military, and has committed his alleged offenses while in the performance of his military duties.

[Vattel]

4. Democrats aren't real keen on constitutional rights these days

Solitary confinement? AOK.
The President's ordering the assassination of a citizen without any judicial process? Fine.
Habeas corpus? Who needs it?
Better criminal statutes to prevent torture and abusive treatment of detainees? Not even on the table.

[joentokyo]

5. Bradley Manning has dual citizenship: the US and the UK, but I have never seen any

mention of Julian Assange having any citizenship other than Australian. Where did you get the idea he has dual citizenship?

[msanthrope]

34. Bradley Manning is not a Dual Citizen--Not does he wish to be, per his attorney--

"There has been some discussion regarding PFC Bradley Manning's citizenship. PFC Manning does not hold a British passport, nor does he consider himself a British citizen. He is an American, and is proud to be serving in the United States Army. His current confinement conditions are troubling to many both here in the United States and abroad. This concern, however, is not a citizenship issue. Instead, it is one involving a basic fundamental right not to be unlawfully punished prior to trial. PFC Manning is not being held like any other detainee at Quantico. He is in Maximum Custody and under Prevention of Injury watch over the repeated recommendation of brig forensic psychiatrists. There has been no stated justification for PFC Manning's confinement conditions. It is the hope of the defense that through the various inquiries into the arbitrary nature of his confinement status, he will soon receive relief from these onerous conditions. "

http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/2011/02/clarification-regarding-pfc-mannings.html

[TorchTheWitch]

41. you don't need a passport to be a citizen

I'm a US citizen and have no US passport. Manning apparently is a US citizen as well as a British citizen but has no British passport and doesn't consider himself to be a British citizen. Could be that he got automatic British citizenship somehow through the circumstances of his birth but just doesn't personally acknowledge it.

Frequently, one's parents apply for and receive citizenship in another country on their child's behalf or the child is for some reason granted automatic citizenship in another country due to some circumstance of their birth and the parents file whatever paperwork may be necessary on their child's behalf so that they can be duel citizens without ever having to jump through any paperwork hoops themselves later in life should they want to take advantage of citizenship rights in that other country. My sister in law is a citizen of both the US and Hungry though she had no idea she had citizenship in Hungry until she was an older teenager. She has no interest in her Hungarian citizenship, has no Hungarian passport and no desire to go there. For some reason it was important to her Hungarian mother that she had Hungarian citizenship and filed whatever paperwork may have been necessary for that when she was born.

[Tarheel_Dem]

6. Unrec for an absolute asshole of a "journalist". Eff Greenwald...

:thumbsdown:

[Enrique]

7. i.e., he criticizes Obama n/t

[Admiral Loinpresser]

8. +1,000

[Rusticus Too]

10. +1

[tekisui]

11. Exactly. How dare he!

[Tarheel_Dem]

24. Who? Glenn (I support Citizens United ) Greenwald? That the one you mean?

:shrug:

[truth2power]

36. Exactly. Because he criticizes Obama. i just listened to the Democracy Now

segment. Greenwald presents a clear argument as to why Obama had no business saying that Manning "broke the law." Obama is now showing himself as someone who operates out of political expediency rather than a knowledge of or concern with, the law.

Those who are now attacking Glenn Greenwald simply engage in drive-by ad hominem excuses because that's all they have.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[vaberella]

12. Uh he is by and large a self-proclaimed Libertarian.

No one has pre-judged him this. As far as both of them are not dual citizens. Assange is just an Australian citizen, last I knew.

I don't understand what is so difficult to understand. These bits of information are classified. He had access to them, took them and gave them to unauthorized people. At which point "secret" information was distributed. It's a hit on national security and that was the issue from the beginning.

[AtomicKitten]

13. I have found this whole mess fascinating.

It showcases people predisposed to glomming onto anything they perceive as being in opposition to this president. B. Jesus Manning was indiscriminate in downloading reams of data and Assange dumped it on the interweb without an iota of concern for the consequences. The first download failed to redact the names of "friendlies" in Iraq, the consequence of cooperating with the U.S. often deadly.

[tekisui]

15. No, Obama just has taken a different position than I.

I applaud the leaks and hope for more. It exposed lies and crimes. Obama should be investigating and charging those who were exposed.

[vaberella]

20. Yes, you do applaud it---even the release of unredacted names release...

which the poster above said was effected.

You didn't read that I guess. It's whatever, if he's convicted he's a criminal.

[tekisui]

22. Is there any evidence that anyone has actually been harmed by the release?

If so, please link. I do applaud the release. Wikileaks has taken care in vetting the information and protecting names before releases.

I absolutely think the release was a patriotic action. I do not support cover-ups of crime and lies by our government. The more it can be exposed the better.

I simply do not care what the law is, in this case.

[vaberella]

27. Do you know they haven't?

The point is that they could be. Even the director who had left because of his treatment went on Cenk's tv show and clearly stated that he believed Manning's actions were wrong, dangerous, and has the potential to cause the death of soldiers and recruiting people. Patriotic to you, far from Patriotic to me.

[tekisui]

35. Killing innocent Iraqis, Pakistanis, Afghanis and Yemenis is also

wrong and beyond potentially dangerous.

When those acts are done carelessly and intentionally and are then lied about and covered up in the highest levels of government, it is indeed patriotic to lay it out for all the world to see.

I don't think most that are against Manning and wikileaks are that concerned about human life. They are concerned about the exposure of US officials.

[vaberella]

21. Some on this board are interesting in their views. n/t

[tekisui]

14. I wonder why the WH has decided to not prosecute Tamm, who did

essentially the same thing with his leak.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x981242

Do you feel the same way about Ellsberg?

[vaberella]

18. In all honesty, I don't know much about this other case. However, it looks like apples & oranges.

Of what I do know ---it would seem Tamm is not American military for one thing. I have no idea what the rules are for American soldiers. Civilians and soldiers are different. Secondly, these are issues that have probably have different evidence.

I say this because what we know and what they know are 2 very different things. You don't allow this play out but you're going on this by a few words on this end and that end. The outsider never knows 100% of the detail.

Have you ever been to jury duty? If you have been, have you ever been chosen to sit for a case? No matter the level of profile? If not, I have. I can honestly tell you the information I would think I had known---based on the general points given to us on the case is completely difference when the burden of proof is presented and evidence is presented. Extremely different.

That being said--you're trying to compare apples and oranges which I won' go for. Not to mention from the leak you provided it would seem the man thought his leak was not illegal and later the WH seemed to agree. However, Manning's was not legal and if I'm to believe the talk between him and Lamos----Manning new very well that his leak was illegal.

[BlackHoleSon]

16. "Secret"

The way the government classifies information as secret has cheapened the value of "secret." The idea that he helped release information MARKED "secret" has no real value to it. That it is criminal - likely. That it is morally wrong - dubious.

[vaberella]

19. I put secret because I read one place that suggested 2 million people had access to this info.

That's not necessarily secret. But so far none of them have been picked to downloading the information and giving it to others.

[bvar22]

17. God forbid...

...that Americans should know what is being done in their name.
Secrecy is much more convenient than democracy.

K&R

[Mimosa]

25. During the late30s, early 40s, there were another people who 'didn't know'

Bvar, I suspect many do not want to know what is being done in our name as US citizens.

It's all going to come back and bite us hard eventually.

[MasonJar]

23. I have seldom disagreed with Glenn Greenwald. I am surprised

that the average DUer does.

[vaberella]

26. Libertarian view points don't always mesh with average Dems or Duers.

Or they wouldn't be Dems. Additionally I find this issue holds to spectrums of thought that is neither wrong nor right---although some on this site to think there is a wrong or right side. We don't have all the information, and most of the information is made up as we go along. Some people say that Manning is transgender, other say he's gay-----we don't know what he is. People say his father is right wing--as though to imply he's lying about Manning. We don't know. Other say he's pro-military and military---as though to suggest that his military background makes him complacent to Manning's mistreatment---if there is any. We don't know. Some say he did it because he was frustrated with the military's stance on DADT. We don't know. Some say he did it because he was forced to be part of a military that mistreated those in the LGBT. We don't know. Some say he did it, because of what he said in the Lamo-Manning chat logs---which was that it should be public (and this is if you believe he did it). <---But it would be seen that he committed a crime since all of them tend to agree he did do the crime without a trial.


What we do know is what the lawyer has said---and implied. Which is that he joked about committing suicide (so he had room to joke)---the pentagon took his "joke" seriously and reacted accordingly. Kept him away from anything that could be used as a weapon and he was under constant watch. He was allowed visitation (although supervised if not his lawyer). He was allowed 3 hours a day of freedom to mingle amongst other prisoners before the suicide watch and so on. If the Lamo-Manning chat was fake I'm sure this would have dropped into oblivion. But I'm assuming this might be able to be traced. Another thing to consider is the reason it's taking so long with his case is because his lawyer requested a delay in proceedings, but I have heard people say otherwise. So the information they have---that being Pentagon, Leavenworth and his lawyer is very different from what we're getting.

I don't deny subscribing to the view that if he crossed the line and broke a law he should be convicted. If his actions were illegal he needs to pay. And he, if we believe the Lamo-Manning tapes, well then he went through a massive effort to hide his actions and do the crime. If he never talked to Lamo, he might be free right now.

[Vattel]

29. I don't think you have your facts straight.

Correct me if I am wrong, but Manning was not allowed to mingle with other prisoners 3 hrs per day, was he? Here is one description of his treatment:

"For nine months, Manning has been confined to his cell for twenty-three hours a day. During his one remaining hour, he can walk in circles in another room, with no other prisoners present. He is not allowed to doze off or relax during the day, but must answer the question “Are you OK?” verbally and in the affirmative every five minutes. At night, he is awakened to be asked again “Are you OK?” every time he turns his back to the cell door or covers his head with a blanket so that the guards cannot see his face."

[NavyDem]

30. From Manning's Lawyer

http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/2010/12/typical-day-for-pfc-bradley-manning.html

This is his typical day, along with the restrictions imposed from the Prevention of Injury order (POI).

[vaberella]

32. Thanks. n/t

[Vattel]

39. Thanks. That confirms what I had read about his treatment.

[vaberella]

31. Actually no...I got mine from Manning's lawyer.

I don't know where you're getting your info. But not from Manning's lawyer that's for sure.

[Vattel]

38. No, Manning's lawyer contradicts what you claimed.

The statement by his lawyer does not say that Manning was allowed to mingle with other inmates three hours per day.

[Vattel]

28. The whole I-hate-Greenwald thing is wierd.

Greenwald is to the left of Obama on issues such as militarism, executive power, civil liberties and human rights. That is the reason he is so critical of Obama. I wish people would address his arguments more often. Then again, most attempts to do that are pretty pathetic.

[vaberella]

33. It's not an "I-hate-Greenwald" thing...

I can't hate someone I don't know. I find that Greenwald has much of is information skewed. And has sold some of that information as though it's fact. He has worked very hard in de-legitimizing the President. And a perfect example is his statements on how Obama is worse than Bush on Manning as compared to Gitmo officers.

It's not hate. More so sadness that his "investigative" reporting is not really done while in the states and is gathered from a variety of sites that we can do our own digging on. Further more, if you notice my post it's mainly about the issues of the Manning case and the way certain things are being sold as fact, that aren't.

[Mimosa]

37. Only a president's own actions can 'de-legitimize' him or an administration.

Johnson, Nixon... Bush.

[Vattel]

40. I have to say that I think you are less fair to Greenwald

than he is to the President. You seem to go out of your way to find fault with Greenwald. Consider an example: In the context of describing why the Manning case has become so controversial, Greenwald pointed out that the controversy was fueled by the refusal of the Pentagon to allow a UN representative to speak privately with Manning, and he noted that even Bush allowed private discussions between representatives of international human rights organizations and Gitmo detainees. There was nothing that was unfactual about what Greenwald wrote, but to you he was making some sort of horribly unfair comparison between Bush and Obama. To justify your worry in your own mind, you convinced yourself that there must be some law or regulation that prohibited the military from allowing a private meeting between Manning and a UN representative. (For all I know, there might be such a law; but for all you know, there might not be.) That was in another thread, but here again we get the charge that a perfect example of Greenwald's sins "are his statements on how Obama is worse than Bush on Manning as compared to Gitmo officers )."

I appreciate the fact that unlike some of Obama's hardcore apologists on this site, you listen to and engage with the arguments of his critics in the spirit of open debate. I'm just trying to get you to give Greenwald a fair shake. I agree with you that he sometimes draws conclusions that aren't adequately supported by the facts. And he is a bit prone to hyperbole. But he is also a skilled constitutional lawyer who often has a plausible legal and moral basis for his criticisms of Obama with regard to issues that concern civil liberties, executive power, detainee rights, killing innocent civilians, etc.