I thoughtthis would be of interest to people here, so, with my time short, I'm going to post it was little commentary. It's a response to Deoliver47's diary and to other similar pieces. Greenwald contests the claim, or implication, that the torture of Bradley Manning is a "new boutique concern."
The author provides links to posts from people he's critiquing - links that don't show up here. Please see the original post to access them.
*There's an emerging theme circulating in some precincts that those protesting the conditions of Manning's detention are somehow acting improperly because they ignore -- and even implicitly endorse -- all the other cases of prisoners in the U.S. being held in prolonged isolation. This claim was first concocted by James Ridgeway and Jean Casella in a recent Op-Ed in The Guardian, in which they glaringly fail to identify a single person guilty of these accusations, opting instead for the consummately cowardly and slimy reliance on the "some say" strawmen tactic favored by mendacious politicians. Thus we find accusations hurled at the following, all without names, citations or even links: "many have argued . . . . progressive commentators . . . these writers – and their readers, if comments are any measure . . . they depict . . . writers and readers make the point . . . . We have also seen articles suggesting. . . . "
It's hard to overstate the intellectual dishonesty and cowardice of those who use this tactic (as always, if you defend yourself from these nameless accusations, the accusers will simply claim they didn't mean you; if you don't, the insinuation hangs over you). As a general rule: if you want to take issue with what someone has said, name them specifically and link to them (or at least cite and quote from the offending article) so that there's accountability and a way for readers to check the veracity of your claims.
This accusation is necessary to address because it's now become a popular means among Obama apologists for discrediting objections to Manning's detention (and, in the hands of some of the Internet's most bottom-scraping, Obama-revering commenters, has even morphed into a claim that the focus on Manning is racially motivated: i.e., he's white, hence the unique concern over his treatment). It's also necessary to address because this Guardian Op-Ed does link to my original article reporting on Manning's conditions -- not to necessarily suggest that I stand accused of these crimes of selective concern, but as an example of Manning's detention being "discussed, lamented and protested throughout the left-leaning blogosphere." I just want to comprehensively address this little smear one time before it proliferates further:
First, those voicing these accusations have apparently never heard of someone named "Jose Padilla," who was mercilessly tortured during the Bush years -- and psychologically destroyed -- from years of solitary confinement without being charged with a crime; back in October, 2006, I detailed the prolonged solitary confinement -- the "torture" -- to which Padilla was subjected ("The base ingredient in Mr. Padilla’s torture was stark isolation for a substantial portion of his captivity," quoting his lawyer's brief), and -- along with countless others now protesting Manning's conditions -- I denounced this treatment as "one of the most despicable and outright un-American travesties the U.S. Government has perpetrated for a long time." Indeed, I wrote endlessly about Padilla's plight, and that was roughly four years before anyone heard the name "Bradley Manning."
Second, in March, 2009, Sen. Jim Webb introduced legislation to fundamentally reform America's Prison State and prison conditions in the U.S.; I publicized that bill and hailed Webb's focus on what I called "disgustingly harsh conditions inside prisons" as "genuinely courageous and principled." Third, both before I ever heard of Manning and every time I've written about him, I've denounced prolonged isolation in general as not only inhumane, but torture. In June, 2009 -- roughly a year before I ever heard the name "Bradley Manning" -- here's what I wrote:
Prolonged solitary confinement is absolutely a form of torture, and while it's unknown whether Shalit was subjected to that, extreme isolation and prolonged solitary confinement are prominents features of America's prisoner system -- not only as part of the "War on Terror," but our domestic prison system as well.
The first time I wrote about Manning, I described the "inhumane, personality-erasing, soul-destroying, insanity-inducing conditions of isolation . . . at America's Supermax prison in Florence, Colorado" and reviewed the full body of literature on how solitary confinement destroys the brain. When I wrote about Manning last month, I noted that "the U.S. is one of the world's most prolific practitioners of prolonged solitary confinement" and at least 25,000 prisoners in America were subjected to it, and then wrote: "Prolonged solitary confinement is inhumane, horrendous and gratuitous even when applied to those convicted of heinous crimes." Fourth, I just finished writing a soon-to-be-released book on America's two-tiered justice system that devotes substantial attention -- including an entire long chapter -- on the way in which America's Prison State is profoundly oppressive based on race and class lines, with a focus on the inhumane conditions of imprisonment.
The notion that objections to Manning's conditions are the by-product of newly discovered concerns or are due to his privileged or celebrated status is offensive in the extreme and, worse, demonstrably false (as the above citations prove). Moreover, those of us whose work focuses on America's civil liberties abuses spend most of our time writing about the plight of ignored, forgotten, marginalized, powerless, invisible, demonized minorities (Gulet Mohamed, Maher Arar, Binyam Mohamed, Ali al-Marri, Chinese Uighurs, etc. etc.) and/or holding the world's most powerful factions accountable for systematic abuses of their authority.
It's true that high-profile cases like Manning's can bring otherwise elusive attention to general problems (Gabrielle Giffords was hardly rare in being shot by an apparently deranged person, but that episode was highly publicized and thus seized on by gun policy and mental health advocates across the board to bring attention to their positions). It's also true that the treatment of Manning raises disturbing issues not triggered by other prisoner abuse cases: namely, it's designed to enable a radical attack on press freedoms (by coercing anti-WikiLeaks testimony) and is being carried out by high-level officials in the administration of a President who ran on a platform of ending detainee abuse. And just like the death penalty in general is unjust when applied to convicted felons but worse when imposed on those convicted of no crime, subjecting someone to prolonged isolation who has been convicted of nothing and poses no danger raises additional issues not raised by doing that to a convicted felon who has proven himself a threat to others (even though they're both wrong).
But whatever else is true, the very idea that this is some sort of new, boutique concern for those objecting to the conditions of Manning's detention is a pure fabrication. What's being done to Manning is an absolute manifestation of the abuses of the National Security State, the Prison State and America's authoritarian culture that have been long protested by most of those now writing about Manning.
Strong stuff, as we've come to expect from GG. I agree with him, although he could've acknowledged the relative lack of attention given torture in American prisons and other criminal justice issues -- anger over that is what seems to be driving the unfounded criticism of those protesting Manning's treatment.
As I've said before, I hope we can all come together to denounce solitary confinement, whoever the victim. Those who oppose solitary -- including those who've been focused on it for years - should be glad that Manning is getting publicity, because it creates an opportunity to mobilize against the issue in general. They should take it instead of focusing their ire on people protesting Manning's treatment.
Picking up on a comment I made in Deoliver47's diary, while all of us should be willing to acknowledge that there are racial reasons why criminal justice issues get such little attention -- imagine, for example, if the Drug War victimized primarily whites? -- it's strange to suggest or claim that torture is some parochial white issue. There weren't a lot of upper middle class whites at Abu Ghraib.
This comment reminded me of one more thing I wanted to say. Opponents of solitary confinement might want to think that this issue has nothing to do with President Obama, but he's become part of the issue, of course. He's responsible for Manning's treatment. You can't be principled advocates if you carve out an exception for the most powerful person on the planet.
One final note. To be clear, I agree with GG on substance; the tone and language are his, of course. Speaking for myself, although I often disagree with Deoliver, I respect her. I hope she responds.
UPDATE: In my original piece, I misleadingly called GG's piece a "direct" response to Deoliver's piece. In fact, it's a response to several pieces, including Deoliver47's post, which he links to.
UPDATE II. I just read through the comments and -- yeesh. Meta mess, much anger. I should have known, and it's nobody's fault but my own for putting up this post. The thread has descended into a Greenwald v. Deoliver47 contest, which of course obscures this issue, or any issue. And the sad irony is the most of us basically agree. The two issues hanging over this discussion are the Obama administration, which has divided progressives into rigid camps, and racism. When I participate in or spark debates about these two issues in the future, I hope to make more constructive contributions.
UPDATE: I've beenasked to clarify my opinions about Greenwald's piece. (This is why I like Daily Kos. I'm serious.) I basically agree on substance, but not entirely. He errs somewhat at the beginning when he says:
There's an emerging theme circulating in some precincts that those protesting the conditions of Manning's detention are somehow acting improperly because they ignore -- and even implicitly endorse -- all the other cases of prisoners in the U.S. being held in prolonged isolation.
I don't think he correctly diagnoses the reasons behind the criticism, which as I said above, derives in my opinion from anger about the lack of attention normally given criminal justice issues and the treatment of American prisoners, many of them black and brown. After all, the criticism comes from people who've worked on and written about these issues for some time. And later on in the post, Greenwald conflates this kind of criticism with criticism from people who defend the treatment of Manning. (And yes those people exist.)
But I believe Greenwald is right to rebut the notion the torture of Manning, and torture in general by the American military, is a "boutique issue." As he points out, those who speak out against the abusive treatment of military detainees -- and Greenwald has been one of the most outspoken and important advocates on this issue -- are speaking out on behalf of some of the most marginalized and defenseless (and they're also not-white) people in the world.
And I don't begrudge him his effort to rebut the charges of selective outrage. A related issue that he doesn't mention: Even though his main issue are civil liberties in relation to national security, he's also been an outspoken opponent of the war on drugs. The charge that he doesn't care about or ignores people in American prisons just doesn't fly.
But, of course, the very fact that I'm compelled to defend the credibility and consistency of Greenwald is a sure sign that this debate has gone awry.
UPDATE: conchita reminds us about the importance of what Bradley Manning has done, with striking words from Daniel Ellsberg. It helps explain why his case has become important to many of us. From all available evidence, he's a whistle blower who was willing to face punishment in order to expose the dirty deeds of his government.
*printed with author's permisson