State Dept spokesman forced out for criticizing Obama's prisoner abuse

Wasn't Manning leaking diplomatic cables? I can't imagine State was really all that comfortable with Crowley defending him, either.

 

I'm mostly just surprised that a spokesman would go so wildly off-message. He should lose his job for it.

As for Manning, reading between the lines, sounds like Obama is saying that his solitary confinement protects him from retribution in the prison and being denied clothes and bedsheets is because he's on suicide watch. It doesn't seem to mysterious to me.

 

I'm a little confuse here. Shouldn't the Wikileaks defenders be defending Crowley? Crowley was speaking out against inhumane conditions and treatment of a prisoner, albeit a traitorous one. Is Manning's treatment the same for some of the U.S. servicement caught selling secrets to the Russians and Chinese?

Don't get me wrong. I think Manning should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, but he should not be "tortured" by denying him the same rights and privileges extended to the Gitmo prisoners (TV, exercise, games, etc.).

If Julian Assange is a hero to the Wikileaks defenders, shouldn't Manning -- and Crowley by extension -- be as well? They aren't to me, but then I'm not a Wikileaks supporter. I'm just trying to get my head around the incongruity.

 

They are. I'm pro-WikiLeaks, and against the torture and lack of due process for Bradley Manning. I think it's despicable what this administration is condoning and that any criticism of the despicable treatment of Bradley Manning is followed by forced resignation. Don't worry, there's no incongruity from me.

Note that I said the treatment of Manning -- I didn't say his act was lawful. There's a difference between what Manning did and what Assange/WikiLeaks does. You can saw what WikiLeaks does is within the realm of legality, but what Manning did isn't. Prisoner torture in order to get an implication on Assange, however, is not legal.