George W. Obama and Abu Quantico

In an earlier post, I commented that how the Obama Administration responds to the harsh and inhumane military incarceration of Pfc. Bradley Manning would speak volumes about this nation's leadership, the state of the presidency and the government.

The New York Times today reported on the President's direct response to a reporter's inquiry about Manning, who is accused (not convicted) of leaking thousands of government documents to WikiLeaks.

Bottomline: The "Commander-in-Chief" takes his orders from the military. Barack Obama is doing nothing to end Manning's abusive retreatment.

Read the story ... and weep.

After you wipe away the tears, write to protest HERE.

Abu Ghraib redux at Quantico

The prison treatment of WikiLeaks suspect Pfc. Bradley Manning is an outrage. He is being forced to sleep naked in his cell and to present himself naked at morning check-in at the Quantico brig.

And we thought that the humiliation inflicted on military prisoners ended with Abu Ghraib and the Bush Administration.

Write the White House to demand that our the President (who as Commander-in-Chief is responsible) end the inhumane treatment of Pfc. Manning.

Here is the Manning story as it appeared in today's New York Times.

WikiLeaks: Does exposed truth set us free?

At the extremes, the question raised by the WikiLeaks phenomenon is whether we are better off in a secretive world or an open one?

To me the question resonates with the founding principle that we have a government “of, by and for the people.”

The more secretive the government, the less it is true to the democratic principle.

Count me among the skeptics who argue that the principle has been violated so many times that it no longer guides us. Ours is a democracy in name alone. The WikiLeaks debate is part of the same crisis in democracy.

We don't need WikiLeaks to tell us that ours is a government by, of and for the wealthy. In short, it is a plutocracy. Look no farther than today’s headlines in which tax cuts for the super rich are on the verge of being — extended against all reason.

Add to that the now-legal, secret corporate donations to political campaigns. The money pays for the creation and dissemination of emotive visual images that defy reasoning and civil and civic discourse.

Yet I still hear in the WikiLeak's debate the distant cry from the Sixties: Power to the People! I see WikiLeaks as nurturing that power and being of that spirit.

Is that good?

Or is openness, versus secretiveness, simply the lesser of two evils.

How often in the course of casual conversation or in conducting business do we wrap information in the shroud of “just between the two of us....”? That’s a secret about to be shared. But why? Is it to weigh perceptions? To warn? To win favor? To create a bond of obligation?

Why can’t we be open and share speculatively? What if? What would your response be if....?

And what, exactly, is a secret? If you have an private thought that you feel isn’t worth sharing, or isn’t ready to share, or appropriate to share, or harmful to share, is it a secret or simply a thought? Must we divulge everything we are thinking? Are shared thoughts confined to a small group secrets?

Do we have different standards for personal “secrets” and societal, political, diplomatic, military and governmental ones?

How do we live with this practical paradox: for a society to remain open it must rely on secrets. Sounds like the ends justifying a contradictory means.

And that question leads to others: Will a truth that is widely known really set us free? Could it, in fact, enslave or destroy us? Must the truth be widely known for it to free us?

So we are left with a quandary.

Still I’d rather have the quandary of awareness than to be lost a thicket of secrets and ignorance.

Reframed news blames the messenger

The Obama Administration is reacting exactly the way the last Bush Administration would to WikiLeak's revelations, ("Afghan War Diaries, 2004-2010,").

What's happening in the current news cycle is "reframing" the news. The Administration's spinmeisters are shifting the media focus from message to messengers.

That's to be expected in a political, bureaucratic culture of deceit. Both administrations have been publicly embarrassed by the disasters they have created — Obama in Afghanistan and Bush in Iraq (and to a lesser extent Afghanistan).

The indignation of the White House and the Pentagon ("How dare the media tell the truth?") only underscores our problem. When our leaders wrap themselves in the flag of "national security," they only make us less secure.

Generals, politicians, pundits, think-tank defense "analysts" and administration "security officials" who describe the disclosures as a threat to the nation and the troops have it exactly upside down. These disclosures clearly show that the White House and the Pentagon are the real threats to our security.

Our government, to whom the military is supposed to answer (one wonders. . .), needs to be reminded that it is acting in our name. That's "we" as in "We, the people."

And "We, the people," are paying a heavy price for tragic, futile attempts at nation building far away.

In these troublesome times, the nation we should be building is our own.

So we should be grateful for the WikiLeaks disclosures. Particularly grateful should be the soldiers who suffer and die because of our failed policies.

Thank you to WikiLeaks and the media that amplified these revelations.

And shame on those who vilify the messengers of truth.