Impassioned woman confronts McCain over his warmongering in Syria during town hall meeting
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday passed a resolution backed by the Obama administration that grants the president a free hand to carry out a devastating war against Syria in order to “change the momentum on the battlefield” and strengthen the US proxy forces seeking to overthrow the regime of Bashar al-Assad.
The resolution, passed by a vote of 10 to 7, with seven Democrats voting in favor, incorporates an amendment proposed jointly by Republican John McCain and Democrat Chris Coons declaring that “it is the policy of the United States” to shift the relationship of forces on the ground in favor of the opposition and enhance the fighting capabilities of “elements of the Syrian opposition.”
The language of the resolution amounts to a blank check for the president and the Pentagon to unleash a torrent of death and destruction on Syrian troops and civilians alike, oversee the toppling of Assad and the installation of a US puppet government, and extend the war into Iran and even Russia. It explodes the White House’s lying pretense that it is preparing only a “limited” and “narrowly targeted” intervention—what President Obama last week called a “shot across the bow” of the Assad regime.
It exposes Obama’s claim that the planned attack will not have as its goal regime change. It makes clear that with the impending attack on Syria, US imperialism is expanding its military aggression in the Middle East to engulf not only Syria, but also Iran and, ultimately, Russia and China. The looming attack is part of a drive for US hegemony in the oil-rich Middle East and the whole of the Eurasian region whose ultimate endpoint is World War III.
[pullquote] The language of the resolution amounts to a blank check for the president and the Pentagon to unleash a torrent of death and destruction on Syrian troops and civilians alike, oversee the toppling of Assad and the installation of a US puppet government, and extend the war into Iran and even Russia. [/pullquote]
The resolution grants the president an initial 60 days of military operations in Syria, with the option to extend the war by another 30 days. It includes a provision barring the use of American ground troops, but adds the caveat “for the purpose of combat operations.” This loophole will be used to escalate the use of CIA and Special Forces troops within Syria.
Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate, who voted for the resolution, said afterward of the military attack, according to the Los Angeles Times, “This won’t be a limited, but a powerful response.”
Before passing the resolution, the committee voted down a resolution by Democratic Senator Thomas Udall that would have limited military action to the use of naval vessels and blocked US war planes from entering Syrian airspace. The committee also voted down a resolution by Republican Rand Paul that invoked the War Powers Act of 1973 to stipulate that the president can order the use of military force only if the US is facing imminent attack.
Passage of the resolution is the first hurdle in the White House drive to obtain congressional authorization and launch military action as early as next week. On Wednesday, Kerry, Hagel and Dempsey appeared before the House Foreign Relations Committee to make the case for war.
The text of the resolution incorporates the lies, unsubstantiated allegations and factual distortions that have been employed by the administration to justify an unprovoked war of aggression against yet another impoverished former colonial country.
It asserts, without any substantiation, that the Assad regime used chemical weapons in an attack on opposition-held suburbs of Damascus on August 21, repeats the administration’s claim of over 1,000 fatalities in the alleged attack, accuses Assad of having carried out previous chemical attacks (ignoring United Nations charges that the “rebels” were responsible for those attacks), and blames the Syrian government for the massive toll in death and destruction that has resulted from more than two years of a civil war instigated and backed by Washington.
The key role of Senator McCain in formulating the resolution sheds light on the real background to and purpose of the war drive. McCain and his chief ally in the Senate, Lyndsey Graham, have for months been leading the agitation in favor of a major US escalation in Syria. Obama met privately over the weekend with McCain and Graham, and a White House spokesman welcomed the passage of the resolution with McCain’s regime change language following the committee’s vote.
At the end of May, McCain made a surprise visit to Syria and met with opposition militia leaders. His trip coincided with a government military offensive that had brought the US-backed opposition to the brink of defeat. It is likely that at that time he discussed plans for a major provocation to create the pretext for direct US military intervention.
It has been widely reported that in mid-August, US, Jordanian and Israeli Special Forces troops led hundreds of insurgents across the Jordanian border into Syria to launch an attack on Damascus. According to Syrian officials, the government launched a pre-emptive military offensive in areas around the capital city, including the site of the alleged August 21 chemical weapons attack, to halt this attack on Damascus.
This evidently set the stage for the alleged chemical attack that has been seized on as the pretext for a war for regime change—one that is in violation of international law, as it lacks the sanction of the UN Security Council.
It is clear that whatever occurred on August 21 was set in motion by the United States in order to save its proxy forces from defeat and escalate its imperialist aggression in the region.
In staging such a provocation and employing the technique of the Big Lie, the Obama administration is taking a page from the playbook of the Hitler regime. Every Nazi aggression—from the annexation of Czechoslovakia to the rape of Poland—was justified as a morally driven response to external aggression or attacks on the human rights of German populations.
Moreover, the war against Syria completely explodes the fraud of the so-called “war on terror.” As is well known, Washington’s major allies on the ground in Syria—and the forces that benefit most directly from US intervention—are Islamist militias linked to Al Qaeda, such as the Al Nusra Front.
Washington’s alliance with Al Qaeda, however, is not new. It goes back to the CIA’s funding and operational support for Osama bin Laden in the US-backed war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s. And it includes US support for Al Qaeda-linked forces in the war for regime change in Libya in 2011.
DO SOMETHING
White House
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/write-or-call
Phone numbers
Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
Hint: If you get a busy signal on the Comments line, call the Switchboard number & tell them you want the Comments line. They put you through. You may have to wait, but at least you don’t get the busy signal
Link for phone numbers for US Senate:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Link for phone numbers for US House of Representatives
Note: Below we present the view on the proposed attack by the US on Syrian targets as summed up by a British paper—The Telegraph—after the UK bowed out of the equation.
Britain’s withdrawal from military strikes against Syria is seen in the United States as a major setback undermining President Barack Obama’s efforts to build an alliance against the Assad regime.
Jon Swaine in New York and Foreign Staff / 30 Aug 2013
The US president is left isolated on the international stage as he considers unilateral miliatry action without United Nations support or America’s most important military ally, Britain.
President Obama’s predecessors have weighed in to offer their views on the pending military action. George W Bush, who of course dragged America into two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, has told Fox News that Mr Obama has a “tough choice to make”, but:
If he decides to use our military, he’ll have the greatest military ever backing him up.
He also says he is “not a fan” of Assad. “He’s an ally of Iran, he’s made mischief“, he adds.
Jimmy Carter, the former Democrat president, said unilateral action would be a mistake.
A punitive military response without a UN Security Council mandate or broad support from NATO and the Arab League would be illegal under international law and unlikely to alter the course of the war…
All should seek to leverage the consensus among the entire international community, including Russia and Iran, condemning the use of chemical weapons in Syria and bringing under UN oversight the country’s stockpile of such weapons.
It will only harden existing positions and postpone a sorely needed political process to put an end to the catastrophic violence.
Chuck Hagel, the US Secretary of Defence, said America would respect the British decision and press on with building an alliance against the Assad regime.
Every nation has a responsibility to make their own decisions, and we respect that of any nation
The British have been very strong in condemning the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons, and that vote in the Parliament doesn’t change that. That is a very significant position for any nation to take publicly. We’ll continue to work with Britain and consult with Britain as we are with all our allies.
It is the goal of President Obama and our government to whatever decision is taken that it be an international collaboration and effort. Our approach is to continue to find an international coalition that will act together.
Caitlin Hayden, National Security Council spokesman, said Washington will continue to consult with Britain, but “President Obama’s decision-making will be guided by what is in the best interests of the United States.”
[Obama] believes that there are core interests at stake for the United States and that countries who violate international norms regarding chemical weapons need to be held accountable.
A senior US official told CNN that America would consider going it alone.
We care what they think. We value the process. But we’re going to make the decision we need to make.
Senator John McCain, the senior Republican, said the vote by British MPs rejecting military action, despite the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime, would undermine President Obama.
I think it’s put [Mr Obama] into a very difficult and contradictory position, because this wasn’t the first time that Bashar al-Assad crossed the red line – there are some allegations there were as many as 30 times, absolutely as many as 10. And there’s no doubt this was chemical weapons – come on. Does anybody seriously doubt it was chemical weapons when there a bodies of children stacked up? So that’s just a facade.
There are a lot of legacies with the lack of American leadership – there is no policy, there is no strategy and there is no endgame here. And until we get one you’re going to see this kind of confusion. And to announce that any action we take would not be aimed at regime change, to me, is incomprehensible.
General Michael Hayden, a former director of the National Security Agency, told CNN that after losing his key ally Mr Obama would have no choice but to go it alone.
I think the United States would act unilaterally because President Obama made this commitment for the US and frankly for himself about a year ago, and I just cant conceive that he would back down from a very serious course of action, in which these actions by Assad have serious consequences.
It would be good politically to have other nations join us, but in terms of raw military power, the United States has sufficient power to do this.
Bill Richardson, the Democratic former US energy secretary and former governor of New Mexico, said the US president “has to be very careful” following Mr Cameron’s defeat in the Commons.
The president has to get a broad international coalition, otherwise he hands Assad a propaganda victory. Assad can say very few countries support the United States with their military strikes. At the UN, too, even though the Russians probably would veto a chapter 7 all-means-necessary military resolution, we could still try to get a ban on arms shipments that bring in some of the chemical weapons. We could try to send Assad to the international court.
Aides to John Boehner, the Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives, said after Mr Cameron’s defeat that Mr Obama must now answer questions on his plans for action in Syria.
It is clear that further dialogue and consultation with Congress, as well as communication with the American public, will be needed – said Brendan Buck, a spokesman for Mr Boehner.
The British vote could give the Democrat US president problems in the Republican controlled Congress as American politicians demand their say too.
Nearly 80 per cent of Americans believe that Obama should get congressional approval before using force in Syria, according to a new poll conducted by NBC news. Half think that the US should not intervene in the wake of the attacks.
Representative Howard (Buck) McKeon, Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said Mr Obama needed to convince Congress and a “war weary” country.
If he doesn’t, I think he could have a real problem with the Congress and the American public. He’s got a big sell. It’s a very tough situation with no good options.
Nancy Pelosi, the Democrat leader in the Congress, said she supported miltary action but that Mr Obama needed to take America with him.
There needs to be more consultation with all Members of Congress and additional transparency into the decision making process and timing, and that the case needs to be made to the American people.
It is clear that the American people are weary of war. However, Assad gassing his own people is an issue of our national security, regional stability and global security. We must be clear that the United States rejects the use of chemical weapons by Assad or any other regime. What Assad has done is outside the realm of basic human rights.
The New York Daily News is shocked by the Commons vote. Britain is now in the German camp and the French, once decried as “surrender monkeys” over Iraq are stepping up to the plate.
President Obama’s attempts to form a coalition of nations willing to attack Syria appear to be splintering.
The biggest blow was dealt by the normally reliable Brits, whose Parliament stunned Obama on Thursday by voting down Prime Minister David Cameron’s proposal to join the attack on Bashar Assad’s government.
With Germany already saying no, the President was left with France, whose president, Francois Hollande, said its troops “have been put in a position to respond.”
The British vote against action in Syria doesn’t bind Obama per se, but it will affect the perceived legitimacy of whatever is done – said PJ Crowley, a former aide to Hillary Clinton at the State Department.
This is an enormous setback for the administration … the British have been allies of ours for so long, in so many of our military operations, will not be part of it – Robin Wright, a fellow of the Woodrow Wilson Centre.
Howver, many US senators said their belief that intervention in Syria had not been shaken by the withdrawal of British support.
A decisive and consequential US response is justified – saidRobert Menendez, a Democrat of New Jersey and the chairman of the Senate committee on foreign relations.
I would support surgical, proportional military strikes, given the strong evidence of the Assad regime’s continued use of chemical warfare – said Bob Corker, a Republican of Tennessee and the ranking Republican on the committee on foreign relations.
By Pepe Escobar, Asia Times
Stop. Look at the photos. Linger on dozens of bodies lined up in a makeshift morgue. How can the appalling bloodbath in Egypt be justified? Take your pick. Either it’s Egypt’s remix of Tiananmen Square, or it’s the bloodbath that is not a bloodbath, conducted by the leaders of the coup that is not a coup, with the aim of fighting “terror.”
Source: RT
Egypt’s “bloodbath that is not a bloodbath” has shown that the forces of hardcore suppression and corruption reign supreme, while foreign interests — the House of Saud, Israel and the Pentagon — support the military’s merciless strategy.
Stop. Look at the photos. Linger on dozens of bodies lined up in a makeshift morgue. How can the appalling bloodbath in Egypt be justified? Take your pick. Either it’s Egypt’s remix of Tiananmen Square, or it’s the bloodbath that is not a bloodbath, conducted by the leaders of the coup that is not a coup, with the aim of fighting “terror.”
It certainly was not a crowd clearing operation — as in the New York Police Department “clearing” Occupy Wall Street. As a Sky journalist tweeted, it was more like “a major military assault largely on unarmed civilians,” using everything from bulldozers to tear gas to snipers.
Thus the scores indiscriminately killed — with crossfire estimates ranging from the low hundreds (the “interim government”) to at least 4,500 (the Muslim Brotherhood), including at least four journalists and the 17-year-old Asmaa, daughter of top Muslim Brotherhood politician Mohamed El Beltagy.
El Beltagy, before being arrested, said, crucially, “If you do not take to the streets, he [as in General Abdul-Fattah al-Sisi, the leader of the coup that is not a coup who appointed the interim government] will make the country like Syria.”
Wrong. Sisi is not Bashar al-Assad. Don’t expect passionate Western calls for “targeted strikes” or a no-fly zone over Egypt. He may be a military dictator killing his own people. But he’s one of “our” bastards.
What we say goes Let’s look at the reactions. The lethargic poodles of the European Union called for “restraint” and described it all as “extremely worrying.” A White House statement said the interim government should “respect human rights” — which can be arguably interpreted as the Manning/Snowden/droning of Pakistan and Yemen school of human rights.
That pathetic excuse for a diplomat, NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, at least was blunt: “Egypt is an important partner for NATO through the Mediterranean Dialogue.” Translation: the only thing we really care about is that those Arabs do as we say.
Stripped of all rhetoric — indignant or otherwise — the key point is that Washington won’t cut its $1.3 billion annual aid to Sisi’s army no matter what. Wily Sisi has declared a “war on terror.” The Pentagon is behind it. And the Obama administration is tagging along — reluctantly or not.
Now let’s see who’s in revolt. Predictably, Qatar condemned it; after all Qatar was bankrolling the Morsi presidency. The Islamic Action Front, the political wing of the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan, encouraged Egyptians to keep protesting to “thwart the conspiracy” by the former regime — as in Mubarakists without Mubarak.
Turkey — which also supports the Muslim Brotherhood — urged the UN Security Council and the Arab League to act quickly to stop a “massacre”; as if the UN and the Saudi-controlled Arab League would interrupt their three-hour-long expense account lunches to do anything.
Iran — correctly — warned of the risk of civil war. That does not mean that Tehran is blindly supporting the Muslim Brotherhood — especially after Morsi had incited Egyptians to join a jihad against Assad in Syria. What Tehran has noted is that the civil war is already on.
Let’s aim for the kill“Byzantine” does not even begin to explain the blame game. The bloodbath that is not a bloodbath happened as the Sisi-appointed “government” had promised it would engage in a military-supported “transition” that would be politically all-inclusive.
Yet, fed up with six weeks of protests denouncing the “coup that is not a coup,” the interim government changed the narrative and decided to take no prisoners.
According to the best informed Egyptian media analyses, Deputy Prime Minister Ziad Baha Eldin and Vice President for foreign affairs Mohamed ElBaradei wanted to go soft against the protesters, while Interior Minister Gen. Mohammad Ibrahim Mustafa and the Defense Minister — Sisi himself — wanted to go medieval.
The first step was to pre-emptively blame the Muslim Brotherhood for the bloodshed — just as the Muslim Brotherhood blamed Jemaah Islamiyah for deploying Kalashnikovs and burning churches and police stations.
A key reason to launch the “bloodbath that is not a bloodbath” this Wednesday was an attempt by the Muslim Brotherhood to march on the perennially dreaded Interior Ministry. Hardcore Ibrahim Mustafa would have none of it.
Sisi’s minions appointed 25 provincial governors, of which 19 are generals, in perfect timing to“reward” the top military echelon and thus solidify the Egyptian “deep state,” or actually police state. And to crown the “bloodbath that is not a bloodbath,” Sisi’s minions declared martial law for a month. Under these circumstances, the resignation of Western darling ElBaradei won’t make Sisi lose any sleep.
The original spirit of Tahrir Square is now dead and buried, as a Yemeni miraculously not targeted by Obama’s drones, Nobel Peace Prize winner Tawakkul Karman, pointed out.
The key question is who profits from a hyper-polarized Egypt, with a civil war pitting the well-organized, fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood against the military-controlled “deep state.”
Both options are equally repulsive (not to mention incompetent). Yet the local winners are easily identifiable: the counter-revolution, as in the fulool — diehard Mubarakists — a bunch of corrupt oligarchs, and most of all the deep state itself.
Hardcore repression rules. Corruption rules. And foreign domination rules (as in Saudi Arabia, who’s now paying most of the bills, alongside the UAE).
Internationally, the big winners are Saudi Arabia (displacing Qatar), Israel (because the Egyptian army is even more docile than the Brotherhood), and — who else — the Pentagon, the Egyptian army’s pimp. Nowhere in the Milky Way this House of Saud/Israel/Pentagon axis can be spun as “good for the Egyptian people.”
Sheikh Al-Torture is our man A quick recap is in order. In 2011, the Obama administration never said, “Mubarak must go” until the last minute. Hillary Clinton wanted a “transition” led by CIA asset and spy chief Omar Suleiman — widely known in Tahrir Square as “Sheikh al-Torture.”
Then a Washington inside joke was that the Obama administration had gleefully become a Muslim Brotherhood cheerleader (allied with Qatar). Now, like a yo-yo, the Obama administration is weighing on how to spin the new narrative — the “loyal” Egyptian army courageously wiping out the “terrorist” Muslim Brotherhood to “protect the revolution.”
There was never any revolution to begin with; the head of the snake (Mubarak) was gone, but the snake remained alive and kicking. Now it’s met the new snake, same as the old snake. Additionally, it’s so easy to sell to the uninformed galleries the “Muslim Brotherhood = al-Qaeda” equation.
Pentagon supremo Chuck Hagel was glued on the phone with Sisi as the July 3 “coup that is not a coup” was taking place. Pentagon spin would want us to believe that Sisi promised Hagel he would be on top of things in a heartbeat. Virtually 100% of the Beltway agreed. Thus the official Washington spin of “coup that is not a coup.” Tim Kaine from Virginia, at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, even extolled those model democracies, the UAE and Jordan, in their enthusiasm for the “coup that is not a coup.”
It’s essential to outline the five countries that have explicitly endorsed the “coup that is not a coup.” Four of them are GCC petro-monarchies (members of the Gulf Cooperation Council, also known as Gulf Counter-Revolution Club); Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait and Bahrain. And the fifth is that little monarchy, Jordan, the GCC wants to annex to the Gulf.
Even more pathetic than Egypt’s so-called liberals, some leftists, some Nasserists and assorted progressives defending Sisi’s bloodlust has been the volte-face of Mahmoud Badr, the founder of Tamarrod — the movement that spearheaded the massive demonstrations that led to Morsi’s ouster. In 2012, he blasted Saudi Arabia. After the coup, he prostrated himself in their honor. At least he knows who’s paying the bills.
And then there’s Ahmed al-Tayyeb, the Grand Imam of al-Azhar, the Vatican of Sunni Islam. He said,“Al-Azhar…did not know about the methods used for the dispersal of the protests except through media channels.” Nonsense; he has repeatedly praised Sisi.
Feel free to adore my eyelashes
There’s no other way of saying it; from Washington’s point of view, Arabs can kill each other to Kingdom Come, be it Sunnis against Shiites, jihadis against secularists, peasants against urbanites, and Egyptians against Egyptians. The only thing that matters is the Camp David agreements; and nobody is allowed to antagonize Israel.
So it’s fitting that Sisi’s minions in boots asked Israel to keep their drones near the border, as they need to pursue their “war on terror” in the Sinai. For all practical purposes, Israel runs the Sinai.
But then there’s the cancellation of a delivery of F-16s to Sisi’s army. In real life, every US weapons sale across the Middle East has to be “cleared” with Israel. So a case can be made that Israel — for the moment – is not exactly sure what Sisi is really up to.
It’s quite instructive to read what Sisi thinks of “democracy” — as demonstrated when he was at the US War College. He’s essentially an Islamist — but most of all he craves power. And the MB is standing in his way. So they have to be disposed of.
Sisi’s “war on terror” is arguably a roaring success as a PR stunt to legitimize his run for a popular mandate. He’s trying to pose as the new Nasser. He’s Sisi the Savior, surrounded by a bunch of Sisi groupies. A columnist wrote in Al-Masry Al-Youm that Sisi doesn’t even need to issue an order; it’s enough to “just flutter his eyelashes.” The Sisi-for-president campaign is already on.
Anyone familiar with US-propped 1970s tin-pot Latin American dictators is able to spot one. This is no Savior. This is no more than an Al-Sisi-nator — the vainglorious tin-pot ruler of what my colleague Spengler bluntly defined as a banana republic without the bananas.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Pepe Escobar is the roving correspondent for Asia Times. His regular column, “The Roving Eye,” is widely read. He is an analyst for the online news channel Real News, the roving correspondent for Asia Times/Hong Kong, an analyst for RT and TomDispatch, and a frequent contributor to websites and radio shows ranging from the US to East Asia. He argues that the world has become fragmented into “stans” — we are now living an intestinal war, an undeclared global civil war. He has published three books on geopolitics, including the spectacularly-titled “Globalistan: How the Globalised World Is Dissolving Into Liquid War”. His latest book is “Obama Does Globalistan.“
by Stephen Lendman
He’s an American hero. He’s no spy. He committed no crimes. He acted responsibly. He did the right thing. He deserves praise, not prosecution. He exposed US war crimes. He fulfilled his legal obligation to do so. He’s victimized unjustly. Police state injustice wants him imprisoned longterm. Systemic unfairness defines US policy.
Manning was convicted on 20 of 22 charges. They include six espionage counts. He potentially faces 90 years imprisonment. On August 14, he addressed his sentencing hearing. More on that below. Manning’s a 2013 Nobel Peace Prize nominee. Over 100,000 people worldwide support him. On August 12, RootsAction co-founder Norman Solomon delivered thousands of pages to Oslo’s Nobel Committee. [Good luck with that as the Oslo committee is practically an appe dage of the US State Department—Eds.)
They urge awarding this year’s prize to a worthy nominee. A petition on his behalf says “(n)o individual has done more to push back against what Martin Luther King, Jr. called ‘the madness of militarism’ than Bradley Manning.”
He acted above and beyond the call of duty. Earlier he said:
“If there’s one thing to learn from the last ten years, it’s that government secrecy and lies come at a very high price in blood and money.” His biographer Chase Madar wrote:
“And though information is powerless on its own, it is still a necessary precondition for any democratic state to function.”
Solomon acknowledged Manning has little chance to win. He called doing so a “very long longshot.” He said the award’s “in dire need of rehabilitation. (I)n truth,” (it) needs Bradley Manning much more than the other way around.”
Obama deplores peace. He won while waging war. He’s waging them without end. He’s got new targets in mind. “No one can doubt” Manning’s dedication “to human rights and peace,” said Solomon. On Oslo’s Henrik Ibsen Street, “the office of the Nobel Committee is under a war cloud of its own making.”
Nobel Committee research director Asle Toje said receiving a “large volume of supporting material for a candidate” isn’t unprecedented. It’ll “neither help nor hinder (Manning’s) candidacy.”
In other words, he doesn’t have a chance. Obama supporters might have been counted on fingers of both hands. Maybe one hand. Maybe a single nomination with no additional support. A deplorable one for sure. Peacemakers are automatically disqualified. Waging war’s considered a Nobel attribute. Enough to make it worth honoring.
It’s what Committee members most prefer. It shows in numerous past honorees chosen. On October 11, this year’s winner will be announced. According to Reuters, 259 individuals and groups were nominated. Likely none have Manning’s stature. Peacemakers aren’t welcome. They’re systematically rejected. It’s longstanding Nobel policy.
On August 14, Manning made a three-minute statement. He did so unsworn. He did it to avoid prosecutorial cross-examination. He apologized for the “unintended consequences of (his) actions.” He “believed (he) was going to help people. (He’s) sorry (his) actions hurt (them).”
He’s “sorry (he) hurt the United States.” He said he was dealing with personal problems. More on that below. He knows he has “to pay a price for (his) decisions and actions.”
“How on Earth could I, a junior analyst, possibly believe I could change the world for the better over those with the proper authority,” he said. I know that I can and will be a better person. I hope that you can give me the opportunity to prove, not through words but through conduct, that I can return to a productive place in society.”
WikiLeaks issued a statement saying “(t)he only currency this military court will take is Bradley Manning’s humiliation.”
“In light of this, (his) forced decision to apologize to the US government in the hope of shaving a decade or more off of his sentence must be regarded with compassion and understanding.”
His “apology is a statement extorted from him under the overbearing weight of the US military justice system. It took three years and millions of dollars to extract two minutes of tactical remorse from this brave soldier.”
Doing so isn’t Manning’s shame. He’s been through hell and then some. He knows US ruthlessness first hand. He revealed what he knew honorably. He exposed unprincipled crimes of war and against humanity. America belongs in the dock, not him. Prosecuting him turns justice on its head. It mocks judicial fairness. It perpetuates the lie about American humanitarian intervention. It masks its dark side.
It defends the indefensible. It permits perpetual war. It makes peace impossible. It assures millions more will die. It risks humanity’s annihilation.
Bradley Manning Support Network director Jeff Paterson said:
His “brief statement today to Judge Lind apologizing for what happened in no way alters the fact that he took heroic action in the midst of an illegal war.” Perhaps he “didn’t blow the whistle on the wrongs he saw in the correct military manner, but he did something while most did nothing.” “That is why millions have been moved to support him, and why we will not relent until he is free.”
Dr. David Moulton testified as Manning’s forensic psychiatric expert. He called him “true to his principles.”
Clinical psychologist Dr. Michael Worsely diagnosed him with Gender-Identity Dysphoria (GID). He added unspecified anxiety-related personality disorder. Manning’s gay. He felt isolated under great stress. He endured the effects of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT). According to Worsely, he worked in an “almost openly hostile environment.” Doing so made life “extremely difficult.”
Admitting homosexually potentially risks court-martial. Administrative military separation may follow revealing a desire to be the opposite gender. Concealing profound inner feelings subjects many people to great stress. Some handle it better than others. No one finds it easy. Military life makes it harder. Pentagon policy’s openly hostile to gays. Manning lived under what Worsely called a “hyper-masculine environment.” Doing so made pressure “incredible,” he added.
He believed he should have been chaptered out of Army service. GID is longterm. It’s better handled outside military life. Following Manning’s statement, the defense rested its sentencing case. Court resumes Friday. Government prosecutors may rebuttal. Sentencing may be next week.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.”
http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network. It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour
http://www.dailycensored.com/bradley-manning-addresses-sentencing-hearing/