Why I Am Marching For Bradley Manning

"I start from the supposition that the world is topsy turvy. That things are all wrong. That the wrong people are in jail, and the wrong people are out of jail. That the wrong people are in power, and the wrong people are out of power. I start with the supposition that we don't have to say too much about this because all we have to do is think about the state of the world today and realize that things are all upside down." --Howard Zinn

Bradley Manning, the whistleblower responsible for the trove of Iraq, Afghan War and diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks, is scheduled to stand trial beginning on June 3. This weekend at Ft. Meade there will be a protest before his trial calling for Manning’s release (For more info check out this site). I plan on attending and have outlined a few reasons why I personally am committed to freeing Bradley Manning

1. Bradley Manning has been tortured.

While Bradley Manning has pled guilty to some of the charges against him, he has not yet been tried and has been in custody since May 2010, meaning that he has been held for three years without a trial. The military judge ruled that part of his time in custody was an illegal form of pretrial punishment and has credited any future sentence Manning would receive with 112 days time served.

Even more disturbing than the fact that the treatment Manning endured was pretrial punishment is that the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture found that his treatment during this time constituted “cruel, degrading, and inhuman treatment.”  / Manning was kept in an extreme form of solitary confinement during which he was confined to a windowless 6 x 12 ft cell for 23 hour day. The conditions were worse than those experienced by American citizens on death row.  

2. The Charges Against Bradley Manning Are Not Only Baseless, but Dangerous

As mentioned earlier Manning has pleaded guilty to ten of the charges against him. Amongst the charges he has not pleaded guilty to include the count of “aiding and abetting the enemy.” This charge is very serious, as it carried the possibility of death sentence (although the prosecution is not seeking the death penalty Manning would still receive life without parole if convicted). It also undermines any notion of democracy as it essentially criminalizes whisteblowing, journalism, and even dissent. Manning is not accused of giving secrets to a hostile foreign state or terrorist organization. Instead, he is accused of leaking information to the whistleblowers website Wikileaks, which in turn turned over such information to newspapers, such as the New York Times and the Guardian.

At first glance, it is unclear who the government considers the  enemy to be. Is it Wikileaks? The New York Times? Or we the American people? However, the prosecutor's argument is that by placing information in the public domain through such sources as Wikileaks and the New York Times “the enemy,” which includes al-Qaeda, was able to access it.

If this was a work of fiction, perhaps something from the cannon of Franz Kafka, this charge would be comical. However, its implications are deeply disturbing and essentially criminalize all whistleblowing and even journalism since any information in the public domain, on the internet, or in newspapers can potentially be accessed by the “enemy.”

Furthermore, no US lives have been endangered by Manning’s action and he revealed no military intelligence or battle plans. It is unclear why al-Qaeda would feel aided by knowing that the American occupation forces in Iraq had a policy of ignoring complaints of torture or that American diplomats conspired with American corporations in actively pressuring the Haitian government against raising the minimum wage. This is unless the American government believes that any information exposing corruption or unflattering actions on their part aids groups engaged in violence against the American people and the American government. This too has deeply disturbing implications. If carried to its logical extreme once again it would de facto criminalize any whistle blowing or even any dissent as “aiding the enemy.”

Luckily, the military judge has rejected the prosecutor's theory of what it means to aid the enemy and instead ruled that the government must prove that Manning acted ““with reason to believe such info could be used to the injury of the US or to advantage of any foreign nation.”

This is certainly is an improvement over what the prosecution wanted, but it still is a threat to whistleblowers everywhere to try Manning for aiding the enemy, particularly when he has already pled guilty to leaking classified information. Furthermore, Manning is a whistleblower and should not be facing any criminal prosecutions. 

3. Manning’s Whistleblowing was a Contributing Factor for the Arab Spring and the US Withdrawal From Iraq .

It is hard to determine what role a single event ever plays in the course of human history. There is also no question that oppostion to corrupt US-backed dictators in Egypt and Tunisia, as well as opposition to the occupation of Iraq long predated Manning’s actions. However, while we do not know what would have happened had Manning not leaked information documenting extreme corruption amongst US client states or the Arab world or the Collateral Murder video such releases helped to spur both the Arab Spring and the eventual US withdrawal from Iraq.

4. NO ONE HAS BEEN JAILED FOR REAL CRIMES

To this day not a single American official has been charged with any crime relating to the murderous, brutal, illegal, and quite frankly evil invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. None of the key architects of the post 9/11 policies of torture have ever faced any criminal sanctions. Obama, to this day, continues to assassinate people via drone strikes, including a 15 year-old American citizen accused of no crimes or links to terrorism (Robert Gibbs suggested his death was his own fault though he not having picked a better father). Decades of support for Israel’s brutal policies of apartheid, colonization, and occupation and for Latin American oligarchs, death squads, and coups have similarly warranted no formal legal sanctions. Yet, Manning stands accused of essentially revealing to the American people the corrupt acts of their government and he has punished without being tried, tortured, and now stands to potentially be imprisoned for life. Clearly the world is topsy turvy. 

Bourgeois Economist Meet Marx, Marx Meet Bourgeois Economist

A specter is haunting the bourgeois economists, the specter of Marx. Paul Krugman opining today in The New York Times joins the growing ranks of mainstream economist who are wondering in light of the recent economic collapse that maybe a certain bearded German theorist was not totally wrong. Mostly wrong, but not completely. Will they come all the way around? Will we be seeing members of the Wall Street Journal editorial board against the barricades screaming, "Bourgeois economist of the world unite you have noting to lose but your chains!" Most likely not (though stranger things have and will happen). Nonetheless the quotes listed below are inexplicably satisfying.

‎"The only guy who really called this right was Karl Marx. Marx understood what would happen if you let the market run amok"--Jim Cramer in an interview with Time Magazine

"Karl Marx had it right.  At some point, Capitalism can destroy itself.  You cannot keep on shifting income from labor to Capital without having an excess capacity and a lack of aggregate demand.  That's what has happened.  We thought that markets worked.  They're not working.  The individual can be rational.  The firm, to survive and thrive, can push labor costs more and more down, but labor costs are someone else's income and consumption.  That's why it's a self-destructive process."--Nouriel Roubini in an interview with the Wall Street Journal 

"Does Capitalism Need to Be More Marxist to Survive?"--Paul Gambles Managing Partner, MBMG International writing for CNBC

"Wait — are we really back to talking about capital versus labor? Isn’t that an old-fashioned, almost Marxist sort of discussion, out of date in our modern information economy? Well, that’s what many people thought; for the past generation discussions of inequality have focused overwhelmingly not on capital versus labor but on distributional issues between workers, either on the gap between more- and less-educated workers or on the soaring incomes of a handful of superstars in finance and other fields. But that may be yesterday’s story.

More specifically, while it’s true that the finance guys are still making out like bandits — in part because, as we now know, some of them actually are bandits — the wage gap between workers with a college education and those without, which grew a lot in the 1980s and early 1990s, hasn’t changed much since then. Indeed, recent college graduates had stagnant incomes even before the financial crisis struck. Increasingly, profits have been rising at the expense of workers in general, including workers with the skills that were supposed to lead to success in today’s economy."--Paul Kraugman writing in the New York Times

New Piece on Israel's Bombing of Gaza

I have a new op-ed published on Speakout at Truthout. It’s about Israel’s bombing of Gaza and how it rests on the dehumanization of the Palestniain people. It can be viewed here, but here is a brief teaser--

In light of Israel’s bombing of Gaza, we can arrive at one conclusion: in order to support it one must show a complete and total disregard for the lives of Palestinians, or at the very least believe them to be worth less than that of their Israeli counterparts. Proponents of the bombing, including the Israeli government, maintain that they are merely defending human life from the unacceptable assault of the rockets. Yet, their own actions in just a few weeks have already taken far more human lives than the rockets have in over a decade. Even more jarring is the topsy-turvy world the Israeli government and their supporters seem to inhabit. In this world aggression is labeled defense and the narrative used to justify said inversions bares little relation to realty. No mention is made of what precipitated the latest round of violence nor is any mention made of the larger context--decades long policies of oppression directed towards the Palestinian people. None of this matters since after all the Palestinians don’t seem to matter.

The New York Times--Still Anti-Palestinian Even when "Critiquing" Israeli Policy

The New York Times criticized Israel’s latest violence, but only because it doesn’t seem to be an “effective way of advancing its long-term interests” and may “divert attention from what Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly described as Israel’s biggest security threat: Iran’s nuclear program.” Israel’s actions are wrong not because they kill Palestinian civilians or violate international law, but because they might not advance Israel’s interest or get in the way of saber-rattling with Iran. Such an inability to assess Israel’s action from any other framework than Israel’s “interests” shows a callous indifference to the suffering of the Palestinian.   

This apathy should not be surprising. The only justification for Israel’s policies towards the Palestinian people, which include not only the latest round of aggression, but the expulsion of refugees, the refusal of their universally recognized legal right to return for the sole reason that they are Palestinian, the constant colonizing of land in the West Bank, can only rest on the dehumanization of the Palestinian people. The latest round of aggression is no exception

Truth-Out

.Truth-Out recently published an original op-ed by me on the subject of Occupy Wall Street and the Prison-Industrial Complex. The complete piece can be found here, but here is preview of what I wrote:

Since Occupy first exploded onto the scene, many within the political establishment and mainstream media have criticized occupiers alternatively for a lack of demands and for embracing too many seemingly unrelated demands. In spite of this confusion among those who are the self-appointed gatekeepers of political discourse, most people have understood Occupy as being a movement concerned with corporate influence over government, economic inequality and the economic crisis at large. It is precisely for those reasons that Occupy should be concerned about America's penal population (which is not to say that many Occupy groups and occupiers are not).

The current regime of mass incarceration is very much tied to the emergence of the neoliberal state in America. The neoliberal state demands stability for the market, but ultimately generates instability with its generation of surplus populations and lack of social resources. This means that while neoliberalism seeks to limit state intervention in the market and slash social welfare nets in the name of "freedom," it inevitably results in increased coercion, militarization and incarceration. And with its desire to subject every aspect of society to the market, prisons become not just a necessity under neoliberalism, but a profitable venture. These factors, not an epidemic of criminality, are the chief causes of mass incarceration in America. Prisons are therefore very much tied to the larger economic polices that Occupy opposes.

Affirmative Action Isn’t Discrimination

Earlier this month the Supreme Court once again took up the issue of affirmative-action. Many who have not closely followed the bizarre, soap opera saga that is the Supreme Court and affirmative action may be surprised to know that the Supreme Court is only willing to accept as constitutional affirmative action regimes that cite “diversity” as their raison d'être. This is because in the original Supreme Court decision on the subject four members of the court ruled that affirmative action was unconstitutional and four ruled that affirmative action as it is popularly understood (as a program to address racial injustice) was not. To overcome this stalemate Justice Powell concurred and dissented in part with both factions. He decided that affirmative action meant to address racial injustice was in fact unconstitutional, but it could be constitutional if the program was meant to ensure “diversity.” Of course this meant as liberal thinker Elizabeth Anderson pointed out that affirmative action as it is currently practiced is “divorced from the aims of social justice.” See Elizabeth Anderson. The Imperative of Integration. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 2010. Pg. 142.

The Supreme Court is constitutionally incapable (pun intended? maybe...) of dealing with structural racism. However, much of the public discourse surrounding affirmative action (including that which is in response to the recent Supreme Court hearing) deals mostly with the traditional issues of racial injustice that affirmative action was designed to address. Because I am merely writing a humble blog and not arguing before the Supreme Court or structuring an affirmative action program for a major university, I am going to ignore the bizarro world of the Court and an actual argument against affirmative action that I frequently hear parroted. 

One of the most common criticisms I hear against affirmative action, including from liberals, is that affirmative action is racial discrimination and racial discrimination is wrong. As Justice Roberts opined  “The way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” Clearly the sort of insightful legal analysis becoming only of the presiding member of America’s highest court. 

However, people who had advance this claim neglect an important point. Affirmative action isn’t racial discrimination. Racial discrimination happens when affirmative action is not in place. Racial discrimination happens when disproportionately fewer numbers of minority students are admitted into higher educational institutions. When a program is put in place and the demographic make-up of those admitted reflect society at large that is not discrimination, but a counter to actual racial discrimination. 

I would even be willing to concede for the sake of argument that reverse discrimination is in itself a form of discrimination and is thus deplorable. These arguments are fallacious when applied to affirmative action because they fail to understand the nature of affirmative action. While it would be nice to live in a “colorblind” society the simple fact is that Americans do not. If such, widespread, institutional discrimination (check out our prison system for proof of that) exists shouldn’t society at large take it into account? 

If so called “race neutral” or color blind college admissions were really race neutral admissions would reflect the racial make-up of our society. They do not because we do not live in the colorblind society opponents of affirmative action imagine.  Ignoring this fact will not help us to achieve such a society, but instead it will just help to perpetuate widespread, systemic institutional racism. Eliminating affirmative action does not create a “colorblind” admissions process. The argument of reverse discrimination made by opponents taken at face value may appear logical, but they are merely sophisms.

Mitt Romney--Mouthpiece for Assad?

      I am not one of those “leftist” who in the name of anti-imperialism embraces whatever dictator the US or its cronies currently has in its sights and turns a blind eye to his crimes against his own people. I am also not one of those who has illusions about American foreign policy having any humanitarian impulses (Long time readers of this blog will recall my first post was a detailed assault on the very notion of “humanitarian intervention”). Unlike some of my comrades I see nothing contradictory between supporting workers, students, and other popular forces against a repressive regime while at the same time opposing any attempts by imperialist forces to intervene. In fact, to me it seems like the only logical position for a socialist to take.

      This is why I am particularly disturbed by remarks both presidential candidates made about Syria. The humanitarian situation in Syria is really very dire. There are certainly popular forces that oppose Assad that have been met with sickening levels of state repression and violence. At the same time, I recognize that the Assad regime has traditionally presented a predicament for American and Israeli foreign policy. I also realize that it is these geopolitical concerns, not the plight of the Syrian people, that motivate US desires for regime change. After all, it is hard for the US to complain of human rights problems in the Middle East after it’s own violent invasion and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s continued use of drones strikes, it’s support for Israeli settler-colonialism and apartheid, as well as, its backing of various repressive Arab states. If America wanted to promote human rights in the Middle East it would certainly be a lot easier to start with its own foreign policy before getting itself involved in Syria. 

While both candidates tended to agree on just about everything, Syria no exception, Romney’s crass description of the murder of 30,000 Syrians as an “opportunity” for the US to install a “friendly” and “responsible” government was the most illustrative of the US’s actual designs in Syria.

What particularly troubled me about this comment was how much it plays into the hands of Assad and his apologist. Max Weber when he defined a state as the monopoly on the legitimate force of violence essentially captured what Louis Althusser would partially argue--that state apparatuses could be reduced to two main functions--repression and ideology. As Barara Fields wrote, that while political hegemony ultimately rests on force, “ There is never ultimately enough force to go around, particularly since submission is hardly ever an end in itself...Slaveholders, colonial rulers, prison guards and the Shah’s police have all had occasion to discover that when nothing remains except force, nothing remains—period.”

Assad has attempted to portray the revolt against his autocratic rule as a western plot, a thinly veiled attempt to punish him for being an “independent” leader and install a puppet regime in his place. Given the legacy of colonialism and intervention in the region, one should not dismiss the power of anti-imperialism as a legitimating ideology (one should also never forgot that true opposition to imperialism is a tenant of any socialist word-view and should not be conflated with the cynical attempts of a despot to remain in power). 

By Romney reducing the situation in Syria to a question of “opportunities” for the US he is essentially playing into and legitimating Assad’s ideological narrative. I would question whether Romney understand’s the potential ramifications of his statements, but for that to concern him he would have to actually care about either human rights or the Syrian people--yet another quality Romney shares with Obama.