The Huffington Post March 4, 2011

Barton Kunstler, Ph.D.

Author, "The Hothouse Effect"

Posted: March 4, 2011 01:20 PM

BIOBecome a Fan
Get Email AlertsBloggers' Index

Bradley Manning's Abuse: Army's

Dishonor, Obama’s Shame

Posted: March 4, 2011 01:20 PM

The treatment of Bradley Manning by the United States Army has stained the honor of the
American military. Manning is the soldier who leaked over two hundred thousand documents to
WikiLeaks -- documents printed by The New York Times and a host of other publications whose
patriotism and support of our country are unimpeachable. None of these documents gave out
troop positions or any other military secrets. Private Manning's intent has been clearly
documented: he feared for the future of his country and he felt desperate to correct our course.

In return, the most powerful army in the world is subjecting him to brutal treatment that qualifies
as borderline torture. One can argue the extent, if any, of his guilt, or whether the editorial board
of The New York Times should be brought up on criminal charges for aiding and abetting the
delivery of the material Manning leaked. But torture? Sanctioned and conducted by the U.S.
Army? Sleep deprivation 'a la North Korea's brainwashing techniques? Stripped and forced to
stand naked in a cold cell? Kept in total isolation 23 hours a day except when he must respond to
guards who check on him -- every 5 minutes? This is the "new army"? Who gave the go-ahead to
impose this kind of treatment on a man who may not even have committed a crime? Who
decided to raise the stakes in Manning's trial and bring capital charges against him. That's right.
He is accused of aiding and abetting the enemy and for a U.S. soldier, the punishment can be
death, although the army announced, in a show of benevolence, they will likely only seek life
imprisonment.

Whoever it is driving this madness, they have a commanding officer. And somewhere up the line,
the buck stops at the top -- at least that's the single most important, bottom-line rule of
leadership. In the United States Army, the top is known as the Commander in Chief, also known
as the President of the United States, Barack Obama. Which leads me to wonder:

Why is the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces silent about the torture and judicial
railroading of an American soldier by his own army, an army of which President Obama is the
highest ranking officer? As Ruth Marcus recently noted in The Washington Post, Obama's is
becoming the "Where's Waldo" presidency. Marcus points out that there's always a rational
explanation for why Obama is strangely inconspicuous during a given event but, as has been
often observed, the apparent upshot is a man unwilling to articulate a moral stance, to stand for
anything. Obama seems to operate under the mistaken impression that leadership is akin to
facilitating a corporate retreat.

Under George Bush our nation, with liberty and justice for all, regularly used torture as a state-
sanctioned extension of political, military, and judicial policy. From Abu Ghraib to Guantanamo,
from the kidnappings and renditions that culminated in U.S. sponsored torture-sessions
throughout eastern Europe, northern Africa, and Asia, the United States became something
unrecognizable, a Dr. Jekyll willingly abandoning itself to its inner, murderous Mr. Hyde.

Many of those tortured were innocent, caught up in petty feuds or an operation that swept up "the
usual suspects". Some were guilty -- but of what? Who determined their guilt and did the
punishment, prior to any determination of guilt, fit the crime? Tragically, the Bush administration
gave up America's last pretensions to ethical distinction among nations.

Now Obama has passed his term's halfway point. Guantanamo is still open. The official language
that sanctioned torture has been Obamafied -- that is, made better than it was under Bush but still
not so strong as to repudiate or even definitively end torture. No member of the previous
administration has been called to account for their use of torture, not only legally, but even in a
public statement by the president. To paraphrase the Buffalo Springfield, "nobody's right if
nobody is wrong."

So again I wonder:

If George Bush could use his authority as President and Commander in Chief to lead the United
States on a descent into torture and gross violation of civil liberties, why can't President Obama
use his authority to take a stand against torture and to restore liberty and law?

Does a conscientious stand against the violence of war deserve the treatment to which Private
Manning has been subjected? Should anyone -- whether convicted or not, whatever their crime --
be tortured by the very institutions that exist to protect not only our individual rights, but the very
ideas of liberty and law? And doesn't the army's use of torture and severe judicial proceedings
debase the military authorities who vent their fury in the ugliest way possible on one of their
own, and undermine the legitimacy of the military as the protective instrument of the nation?

And finally, if our Commander in Chief shrinks into the background and ignores the abuse of
Bradley Manning, how can he expect to maintain his credibility as our leader, as the moral
compass of our country?