Let's review Manning's detention over the last nine straight months:  23-hour/day solitary confinement; barred even from exercising in his cell; one hour total outside his cell per day where he's allowed to walk around in circles in a room alone while shackled, and is returned to his cell the minute he stops walking; forced to respond to guards' inquiries literally every 5 minutes, all day, everyday; and awakened at night each time he is curled up in the corner of his bed or otherwise outside the guards' full view.  Is there anyone who doubts that these measures -- and especially this prolonged forced nudity -- are punitive and designed to further erode his mental health, physical health and will?  As The Guardian reported last year, forced nudity is almost certainly a breach of the Geneva Conventions; the Conventions do not technically apply to Manning, as he is not a prisoner of war, but they certainly establish the minimal protections to which all detainees -- let alone citizens convicted of nothing -- are entitled.

The treatment of Manning is now so repulsive that it even lies beyond what at least some of the most devoted Obama admirers are willing to defend.  For instance, UCLA Professor Mark Kleiman -- who last year hailed Barack Obama as, and I quote, "the greatest moral leader of our lifetime" -- wrote last night: 

The United States Army is so concerned about Bradley Manning’s health that it is subjecting him to a regime designed to drive him insane. . . . This is a total disgrace. It shouldn't be happening in this country. You can't be unaware of this, Mr. President. Silence gives consent.

The entire Manning controversy has received substantial media attention.  It's being carried out by the military of which Barack Obama is the Commander-in-Chief.  Yes, the Greatest Moral Leader of Our Lifetime and Nobel Peace Prize winner is well aware of what's being done and obviously has been for quite some time.  It is his administration which is obsessed with destroying and deterring any remnants of whistle-blowing and breaches of the secrecy regime behind which the National Security and Surveillance States function.  This is all perfectly consistent with his actions in office, as painful as that might be for some to accept (The American Prospect, which has fairly consistently criticized Obama's civil liberties abuses, yesterday called the treatment of Manning "torture" and denounced it as a "disgrace").   As former Army officer James Joyner (and emphatic critic of WikiLeaks and Manning) writes:

Obama promised to close Gitmo because he was embarrassed that we were doing this kind of thing to accused terrorists. But he's allowing it to happen to an American soldier under his command?

And I'll say this again:  just fathom the contrived, shrieking uproar from opportunistic Democratic politicians and their loyalists if it had been George Bush and Dick Cheney -- on U.S. soil -- subjecting a whistle-blowing member of the U.S. military to these repressive conditions without being convicted of anything, charging him with a capital offense that statutorily carries the death penalty, and then forcing him to remain nude every night and stand naked for inspection outside his cell.  Feigning concern over detainee abuse for partisan gain is only slightly less repellent than the treatment to which Manning is being subjected.

Guantanamo Standard Operating Procedures, December, 2002:

In addition to degradation of the detainee, stripping can be used to demonstrate the omnipotence of the captor or to debilitate the detainee.

Jane Mayer, The Dark Side:

[T]he CIA interrogators also announced they planned to become [Abu] Zubaydah's "God." They reportedly took his clothing as punishment, and reduced his human interaction to a single daily visit in which they would say simply, "You know what I want," and then leave.

The New York Times, yesterday:

A lawyer for Pfc. Bradley Manning, the Army intelligence analyst accused of leaking secret government files to WikiLeaks, has complained that his client was stripped and left naked in his cell for seven hours on Wednesday. . . . The soldier's clothing was returned to him Thursday morning, after he was required to stand naked outside his cell during an inspection. . . . First Lt. Brian Villiard, a Marine spokesman, said a brig duty supervisor had ordered Private Manning's clothing taken from him.

 * * * * *

On January 26, 2011, Defense Department spokesman Geoff Morrell stood before the Pentagon press corps and made a series of patently false statements about Bradley Manning (the video is here).  Even taking into account the position Morrell occupies -- in which a penchant for telling the truth is not exactly a job requirement (it actually would be disqualifying) -- this Press Conference was an extraordinary display of pure official mendacity.  

Morrell was asked several times about the evidence -- first reported here -- that Manning was being held in repressive and inhumane conditions:  specifically, 23-hour/day solitary confinement, a prohibition on exercising in his cell, and being allowed out only 1 hour per day to "exercise" which entails walking around alone in a room, shackled.  Morrell repeatedly insisted that everything being done to Manning was being done to all of the other detainees at the brig; in his words:

he is being treated just like every other detainee in the brig. . . . assertions by liberal bloggers, or network reporters or others that he is being mistreated, or somehow treated differently than others, in isolation, are just not accurate . . . Just as though he is not being treated any worse than any other detainee, he is not being treated any better than any other detainee. . . . He is being treated exactly like everyone else in the brig is being treated. . . . what I come back to time and time again, Chris, is the notion that the manner of his confinement is not in the least different from the manner in which anyone else at the brig is being held. . . . that is consistent with how every other person in the brig is being held.

To describe those statements as "misleading" is to be extremely generous.  Morrell's claims were the opposite of reality:  factually and demonstrably false.   Manning was the only detainee being held under those conditions, the exact opposite of what Morrell told the public.  As Lt. Col. David Coombs, Manning's counsel, detailed that day:

Morrell stated during today's Pentagon briefing that PFC Manning's "confinement is not in the least different from the manner in which anyone else at the brig is being held."  This statement is patently false. . . .

Under the above restrictions, every other detainee is allowed outside of their cell for the majority of the day. The facility is not locked down when they are walking in the brig. They do not wear hand and leg restraints outside of their cell. They are not escorted by guards when outside of their cell. Every other detainee is assigned to work details during the day. These work details allow them move freely within the facility and also outside of the facility whenever within the security perimeter. . . .

Due to the POI watch, [Manning] is held in solitary confinement. For 23 hours per day, he sits in his cell. The guards check on him every five minutes by asking him if he is okay. He is required to respond in some affirmative manner. At night, if the guards can not see him clearly, because he has a blanket over his head or he is curled up towards the wall, they will wake him in order to ensure that he is okay. He receives each of his meals in his cell. He is not allowed to have a pillow or sheets. He is not allowed to have any personal items in his cell. He is only allowed to have one book or one magazine at any given time to read. The book or magazine is taken away from him at the end of the day before he goes to sleep. He is prevented from exercising in his cell. If he attempts to do push-ups, sit-ups, or any other form of exercise he will be forced to stop. He receives one hour of exercise outside of his cell daily. The guards take him to a room and allow him to walk. He usually walks in figure eights around the room. When he goes to sleep, he is required to strip down to his underwear and surrender his clothing to the guards.

Every other detainee is not subjected to constant monitoring or asked if they are okay every five minutes. Every other detainee is allowed to have sheets and a pillow. Every other detainee may have personal items in their cell. Every other detainee may have paper and pens in their cell in order to write to family and friends. Every other detainee may have any combination of 15 books or magazines in their cell at all times. Any other detainee can exercise in their cell during the day. No other detainee has to strip to their underwear at the end of the day and surrender their clothing to the guards. 

Is there any way to compare the facts to the multiple statements made to the media by Morrell -- e.g., Manning " is being treated exactly like everyone else in the brig is being treated" -- and reach any conclusion other than that Morrell is a completely deceitful and untrustworthy individual?

Yesterday, Morrell went on MSNBC to be interviewed by Chuck Todd and Savannah Guthrie about a variety of topics, including the conditions of Manning's detention -- and by "interviewed," I mean:  have a series of open-ended questions reverently posed to him without the slightest challenge to a word he uttered.  Guthrie touted beforehand her intent to ask Morrell about Manning, but despite being told before the interview about the series of deceitful statements, and despite the fact that she should have been independently aware of that episode as a journalist preparing to interview the Pentagon spokesman, Morrell's false statements were, needless to say, never brought up.

Instead, typifying what Jay Rosen calls "the death of the watchdog press," Todd and Guthrie posed a few innocuous, open-ended questions to him and then allowed him to spout his talking points without being challenged about anything.  Just as Bush officials used to do when asked about Guantanamo, Morrell proudly announced that he had just visited the brig and was so very impressed with the "professionalism" of how detainees are imprisoned.   Just as Bush officials so often did, he dismissed objections this detainee mistreatment as coming from nothing more than "some on the far left, a couple of wesbites in particular, and one of the shows on this network" (are Amnesty International and the U.N. Rapporteur on Torture  "far left websites"?  and note how often Obama officials adopt the Fox-News/Bush-follower slur of dismissing their critics (on detainee abuse and otherwise) as those on "the far Left")?  But this time, Morrell -- directly contrary to his unambiguous claims in his January press briefing, was forced to acknowledge that Manning (whose conduct he said has been "exemplary") suffers restrictions to which none of the other detainees are subject (except one, he claimed).  Despite all that, Morrell smugly insisted that, based on his visit, the conditions of Manning's detention were perfectly appropriate and correct.

Morrell chose a very bad day to go on MSNBC with his subservient journalistic pets to invoke his Potemkin Village defense of Manning's detention.  Literally hours later, Lt. Col. Coombs detailed the forced nudity to which Manning had been subjected the night before and described how "Manning has been told that the same thing will happen to him again tonight. "  He added that "this type of degrading treatment is inexcusable and without justification," that "it is an embarrassment to our military justice system," and that "no other detainee at the Brig is forced to endure this type of isolation and humiliation."  James Joyner -- a former Army Captain and relentless critic of WikiLeaks and Manning -- added his own righteous condemnation of this conduct, accurately noting:  "This treatment would be an international scandal if done to an accused terrorist at Gitmo or to a convicted criminal on death row. "

Brig officials refuse to say why they forced Manning to remain nude, telling the NYT that Manning's "privacy" rights precluded comment (these are the same people who forced Manning to remain nude for hours and then stand that way for inspection; now they cite concerns for his "privacy" as to why they can't comment on why they did it).  Recall that in late January, NBC News' Jim Miklaszewski reported that the brig commander had violated the military's rules by placing Manning on "punitive" suicide watch even after two psychiatrists concluded he was not a suicide risk; the commander was replaced shortly thereafter.  And, as Joyner notes, to the extent that Manning has suffered a decline in his psychological and emotional state -- as Manning's friend, David House, has been warning for months -- it's because he's been held in patently inhumane and repressive conditions for 10 straight months now despite being convicted of absolutely nothing, with no end in sight.

It's long been clear that the Obama administration is subjecting Manning to this treatment in order to break him and thus induce the type of incriminating statements they need to build a conspiracy case against their real targets:   WikiLeaks and Julian Assange.   Moreover, the Obama administration's unprecedented obsession with deterring and punishing whistle-blowers is undoubtedly motivating much of this punitive conduct as well.  

Whatever the motives, charging a whistle-blower with a capital offense of "aiding the enemy," sticking him for almost a full year in repressive solitary confinement, and then forcing him to remain nude in captivity, is the type of abusive detainee treatment that caused substantial political controversy during the Bush years.  Now, by stark contrast, the silence is deafening.

* * * * *

Morrell -- a former ABC News reporter before joining the Pentagon during the Bush administration -- is one of those countless Beltway officials who seamlessly travel back and forth between government positions and "journalism."   As his extremely amiable chat with Chuck and Savannah demonstrates, there is very little difference between the role played by establishment journalists and government spokespeople, which is why they're able so easily to move back and forth between the two.  And -- as his "far left" slurs and his Bush-like "I-visited-the-detention-facility-and-was-so-impressed-with-its-professionalism" defense demonstrates -- he's also one of those many, many bipartisan National Security State officials in Washington who fit every bit as comfortably in a Republican administration as they do in a Democratic one (just like his boss, former Bush and current Obama Pentagon chief Robert Gates).

UPDATE:  Coombs reports that Manning was forced into nudity again last night, and adds:

This treatment is even more degrading considering that PFC Manning is being monitored -- both by direct observation and by video -- at all times. The defense was informed by Brig officials that the decision to strip PFC Manning of all his clothing was made without consulting any of the Brig's mental health providers.

Let's try to fathom the uproar and politically opportunistic protests from Democrats if it were the Bush administration treating an American whistle-blowing member of the military -- on U.S. soil -- in this manner.

Article 104 -- which, like all provisions of the UCMJ, applies only to members of the military -- is incredibly broad. Under 104(b) -- almost certainly the provision to be applied -- a person is guilty if he "gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly" (emphasis added), and, if convicted, "shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct." The charge sheet filed by the Army is quite vague and neither indicates what specifically Manning did to violate this provision nor the identity of the "enemy" to whom he is alleged to have given intelligence. There are, as international law professor Kevin Jon Heller notes, only two possibilities, and both are disturbing in their own way.

In light of the implicit allegation that Manning transmitted this material to WikiLeaks, it is quite possible that WikiLeaks is the "enemy" referenced by Article 104, i.e., that the U.S. military now openly decrees (as opposed to secretly declaring) that the whistle-blowing group is an "enemy" of the U.S. More likely, the Army will contend that by transmitting classified documents to WikiLeaks for intended publication, Manning "indirectly" furnished those documents to Al Qaeda and the Taliban by enabling those groups to learn their contents. That would mean that it is a capital offense not only to furnish intelligence specifically and intentionally to actual enemies -- the way that, say, Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen were convicted of passing intelligence to the Soviet Union -- but also to act as a whistle-blower by leaking classified information to a newspaper with the intent that it be published to the world. Logically, if one can "aid the enemy" even by leaking to WikiLeaks, then one can also be guilty of this crime by leaking to The New York Times.

The dangers of such a theory are obvious. Indeed, even the military itself recognizes those dangers, as the Military Judges' Handbook specifically requires that if this theory is used -- that one has "aided the enemy" through "indirect" transmission via leaks to a newspaper -- then it must be proven that the "communication was intended to reach the enemy." None of the other ways of violating this provision contain an intent element; recognizing how extreme it is to prosecute someone for "aiding the enemy" who does nothing more than leak to a media outlet, this is the only means of violating Article 104 that imposes an intent requirement.

But does anyone actually believe that Manning's intent was to ensure receipt of this material by the Taliban, as opposed to exposing for the public what he believed to be serious American wrongdoing and to trigger reforms? Indeed, in the purported chat logs between Manning and government informant Adrian Lamo, Lamo asked Manning why he didn't sell this information to a foreign government and get rich off it, and this is how Manning replied:

because it's public data. . . . it belongs in the public domain -information should be free - it belongs in the public domain - because another state would just take advantage of the information… try and get some edge - if its out in the open . . . it should be a public good

This prosecution theory would convert acts of whistle-blowing into a hanging offense.

Worse still, whatever Manning's behavior was in terms of "aiding the enemy," that exact same behavior was engaged in by The New York Times, The Guardian, and numerous other newspapers that published these classified documents and thus enabled the Taliban, Al Qaeda and all the other Enemies Du Jour to access them. As Professor Heller put it:

If Manning has aided the enemy, so has any media organization that published the information he allegedly stole. Nothing in Article 104 requires proof that the defendant illegally acquired the information that aided the enemy. As a result, if the mere act of ensuring that harmful information is published on the internet qualifies either as indirectly "giving intelligence to the enemy" (if the military can prove an enemy actually accessed the information) or as indirectly "communicating with the enemy" (because any reasonable person knows that enemies can access information on the internet), there is no relevant factual difference between Manning and a media organization that published the relevant information.

As Heller notes, since the UCMJ applies only to members of the military, newspapers (or WikiLeaks) couldn't actually be charged under Article 104; still, "there is still something profoundly disturbing about the prospect of convicting Manning and sentencing him to life imprisonment [GG: or the death penalty] for doing exactly what media organizations did, as well." It's true that members of the military have legal duties that others do not have -- including the duty not to leak classified information -- but this incredibly expansive interpretation of what it means to "aid the enemy" dangerously encompasses all sorts of legitimate press and speech activities, especially when combined with the Obama administration's escalating war on whistle-blowing and the journalists who expose government secrets. This is yet another step in infecting the law with doctrines of Endless War and its accompanying mentality.

* * * *

The Manning controversy tracks almost perfectly the one from 40 years ago involving Daniel Ellberg's leak of thousands of pages of the Top Secret Pentagon Papers. Not even Manning's most ardent defenders deny that he broke the law if he was actually the leaker (just as nobody denies that Ellsberg broke the law).

Nonetheless, the notion that Daniel Ellberg's leak was noble and justified has become consecrated orthodoxy among most Democrats, progressives and even among the American media -- because it's very easy to cheer on challenges to authority and political power from four decades earlier, when the targets of the whistle-blowing no longer wield power. Yet even though Manning's actions are so similar to Ellsberg's both in intent and effect -- as Ellsberg himself has repeatedly stated -- the reaction to Manning is radically different: both because Manning's actions challenge the policy of current authorities who actually wield power now and because it's a Democratic President prosecuting him. That Ellsberg is viewed as a hero while Manning is viewed as a death-deserving villain makes no logical sense.

It's at least intellectually coherent (though quite misguided) to see both Ellsberg and Manning as criminal demons who deserve to be locked away forever (the same things said now to condemn Manning were said back then about Ellsberg, including from the Supreme Court: "revelation of [the Pentagon Papers] will do substantial damage to public interests," wrote Justice White. But it's incoherent in the extreme to praise Ellsberg while condemning Manning (particularly since everything Manning is accused of leaking bears a much lower secrecy designation than the massive amounts of Top Secret material leaked by Ellsberg).

Critically, if one believes the authenticity of the purported Manning/Lamo chat log snippets selectively released by Wired, then Manning was very clear about why he decided to leak these materials: he sought to trigger worldwide reforms of government wrongdoing exposed by these documents:

Lamo: what's your endgame plan, then?. . .

Manning: well, it was forwarded to [WikiLeaks] - and god knows what happens now - hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms - if not, than [sic] we're doomed - as a species - i will officially give up on the society we have if nothing happens - the reaction to the [Baghdad Apache attack] video gave me immense hope; CNN's iReport was overwhelmed; Twitter exploded - people who saw, knew there was something wrong . . . Washington Post sat on the video… David Finkel acquired a copy while embedded out here. . . . - i want people to see the truth . . . regardless of who they are . . . because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public.

This leaves little doubt about Manning's motives. And there is also little doubt that Manning has achieved those ambitious and noble goals on multiple levels. Although the extent is reasonably in dispute, even WikiLeaks' most embittered antagonists -- such as New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller -- acknowledge that the release of the diplomatic cables played some role in the uprising in Tunisia, which in turn sparked similar uprisings of historic significance throughout the Middle East. From Keller:

For those who do not follow these subjects as closely, the stories are an opportunity to learn more. If a project like this makes readers pay attention, think harder, understand more clearly what is being done in their name, then we have performed a public service. And that does not count the impact of these revelations on the people most touched by them. WikiLeaks cables in which American diplomats recount the extravagant corruption of Tunisia's rulers helped fuel a popular uprising that has overthrown the government.

Beyond that, the documents Manning is alleged to have leaked have revealed a wide range of corruption, deceit and illegality by government officials around the world. They have forced Americans to confront the realities of the wars they endlessly wage and support. And it is virtually impossible to read news articles about any significant event in the Middle East without encountering references to important information revealed by WikiLeaks documents.

In sum, if one believes the allegations and the chat logs, Manning's actions have already led to many of the "reforms" and increased awareness he hoped to achieve. Thus do we have the strange spectacle of Americans cheering on the democratic uprisings in the Middle East and empathizing with the protesters, all while revering American political leaders who for years helped sustained the dictatorships which oppressed them and disdaining those (Manning) who may have played a role in sparking the protests. More revealingly, American political leaders responsible for grave atrocities (like this and this and this) are treated like peace-loving statesmen and honored dignitaries, while those who heroically risk their lives to expose and end that wrongdoing (Manning, and Ellsberg before him) are thrown into a cage, threatened with death, and scorned by All Decent People.

Part of what explains that is just the standard authoritarian mindset: even heinous acts committed under sanction of officialdom are treated as inherently legitimate, while those who challenge those authorities are scorned. But there's something broader that accounts for the almost universal disdain directed at Manning: these leaks showed us the true face of American conduct in the world. Those who reveal truths which most people would prefer to ignore are typically hated, and are often those most severely punished.

* * * * *

As a reminder:  Manning -- convicted of nothing -- continues to be held in 23-hour/day, highly repressive solitary confinement; despite protests from Amnesty International, a formal investigation by the U.N.'s top torture official, and the replacement of the brig commander, Manning has been held that way for ten straight months, with no change in sight.

 

UPDATE:  Two briefs points to underscore the key issues here.  First, Richard Nixon -- when justifying the attacks on Daniel Ellsberg -- denounced him for having provided ""aid and comfort to the enemy."  As usual, the more things "change," . . .

And then there's this question I posed on Twitter:

 

UPDATE II:  Lt. Col. David Coombs, Manning's counsel, just posted the following:

Last night, PFC Manning was inexplicably stripped of all clothing by the Quantico Brig. He remained in his cell, naked, for the next seven hours. At 5:00 a.m., the Brig sounded the wake-up call for the detainees. At this point, PFC Manning was forced to stand naked at the front of his cell.

The Duty Brig Supervisor (DBS) arrived shortly after 5:00 a.m. When he arrived, PFC Manning was called to attention. The DBS walked through the facility to conduct his detainee count. Afterwards, PFC Manning was told to sit on his bed. About ten minutes later, a guard came to his cell to return his clothing.

This type of degrading treatment is inexcusable and without justification. It is an embarrassment to our military justice system and should not be tolerated. PFC Manning has been told that the same thing will happen to him again tonight. No other detainee at the Brig is forced to endure this type of isolation and humiliation.

I'm already disgusted anticipating the Obama loyalists and right-wing fanatics who will jointly defend this.

And last month, in Orange County, California, Tea Party members and other protesters bombarded a charity event sponsored by a Muslim group -- and the families of American Muslims entering the event -- with the most foul, hateful, threatening messages possible, while various politicians, including a member of Congress, praised the protesters.  Just please watch this video, compiled by CAIR-California, to get a taste of what is happening (you can watch it below or here):

Several months ago, I wrote about the "odiousness of the distorted Godwin's law":  the corrupt notion that anything and everything relating to the events that enabled Nazi Germany are off-limits in political discussion, that the entire historical matter is just blacked out and rendered taboo.  This understanding of that "law" is odious because learning from all historical episodes, including that one, is vital.  Indeed, the creator of this "law" -- Mike Godwin -- appeared in the comment section to that post to explain that he sought not to prevent all comparisons to the Germany of that era but only "glib comparisons," noting:  "The purpose of Godwin's Law is to provoke remembering, not forgetting (and certainly not silence)."

Regardless of what one believes about that comparison, to note the similarity between then and what's happening now -- laws to criminalize a minority religion, formal government investigations into disloyalty from a minority group, violent attacks on their place of worship, and the intensity of the hate-mongering evidenced by that disgusting video -- is anything but "glib."  The Southern Poverty Law Center recently declared that Pamela Geller and her band of twisted anti-Muslim hatemongers constitute a "hate group."  It's encouraging that SPLC is taking this growing menace that seriously; everyone should be.

 

UPDATE:  I think what was most striking about that video is that the presence of small children didn't give these anti-Muslim protesters even momentary pause; they just continued screeching their ugly invective while staring at 4-year-olds walking with their parents.  People like that are so overflowing with hatred and resentments that the place where their humanity -- their soul -- is supposed to be has been drowned.  

Dodd responded to those suggestions by repeatedly and categorically insisting that he would not work as a lobbyist.  In March of last year, he told The Hartford Courant that "he will not lobby, but, like [former Senators Chuck] Hagel and [Sam] Nunn, he may teach."  In an August article headlined "Dodd forswears a lobbying career," The Connecticut Mirror quoted him as saying:  "No lobbying, no lobbying."  That vow earned this praise from Public Citizen's Craig Holman:  "That's excellent on Senator Dodd's part."  

Here's what Chris Dodd's word and integrity are worth, from The Hill yesterday:

Dodd to be Hollywood's top man in Washington

Former Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) will be Hollywood’s leading man in Washington, taking the most prestigious job on K Street.

The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) named Dodd chairman and CEO on Tuesday. But heading Hollywood's lobbying arm could be problematic for the former senator, who accepted the kind of job he pledged not to take. . . .

Dodd's hiring, which had been rumored for weeks, ends months of media speculation regarding who would take one of the most glamorous jobs on K Street, whose perks include a $1.2 million-a-year salary and getting to attend the Academy Awards ceremony.

Dodd is barred from formally working himself as a lobbyist for two years after leaving the Senate, but the core purpose of his new job is to oversee lobbying activities and to convert his influence and inside knowledge of Washington into favorable legislation and desired regulatory action (or inaction) for the MPAA.  Dodd is replacing another long-time DC official paid to peddle his influence:  Dan Glickman -- the former 9-term Democratic Congressman from Kansas and Clinton administration Agriculture Secretary.  Leaving no doubt about what the MPAA seeks in this position -- a politician willing to sell his connections to the highest bidder -- the association chose Dodd only after it was unsuccessful in recruiting former Sen. Bob Kerrey.

Other than the blatant violation of his pledge, there is, of course, nothing unusual about Dodd's sleazy feeding at the trough through legalized influence-peddling.  It's how Washington works.  Holman's Public Citizen group circulates "Integrity Pledges" asking retiring members of Congress to find something else to do besides lobbying on the ground that, as Holman put it when praising Dodd's (worthless) no-lobbying pledge last year:

The revolving door abuse is just out of control here on Capitol Hill and it is a primary source of undue influence peddling, Only the very wealthy businesses can afford senators and congressmen.

This, of course, is the whole point.  So much energy and chatter is spent fixating on partisan wars and election victories, but this is the real process that determines policy outcomes.  How can ordinary Americans possibly compete with corporations that can purchase the Chris Dodds of the world from both parties, who then dutifully use their decades of influence to foster the legislative and executive outcomes their owners want?   Obviously, they can't and don't, which is another way of saying that democracy exists in name only; to say that "only the very wealthy businesses can afford senators and congressmen" is another way of describing oligarchy.

This is why I found Charles Koch's Monday Wall Street Journal Op-Ed so darkly amusing.  To justify the ugly spectacle of billionaires and TV millionaries endlessly demanding "sacrifices" from America's middle and lower classes -- by, for instance, suffering cuts in their Social Security and Medicare safety nets -- Koch tried to insist that he wants the sacrifice to be shared equally by everyone:

There have been few serious proposals for necessary cuts in military and entitlement programs, even though these account for about three-fourths of all federal spending.

Too many businesses have successfully lobbied for special favors and treatment by seeking mandates for their products, subsidies (in the form of cash payments from the government), and regulations or tariffs to keep more efficient competitors at bay.

Crony capitalism is much easier than competing in an open market. But it erodes our overall standard of living and stifles entrepreneurs by rewarding the politically favored rather than those who provide what consumers want.

That's all lovely in theory, but significant defense spending cuts and curbs on "crony capitalism" -- as Koch well knows -- will never happen absent some serious social unrest, precisely because the factions which benefit from them own all the influence in Washington, thanks to their purchase of people like Chris Dodd.  Only the politically powerless -- meaning the nation's middle and lower classes -- will involuntarily "sacrifice" because they can't afford to purchase the influence necessary to defend their interests in this battle over diminishing resources (and, of course, the only large entity capable of providing some minimal counterweight to this lopsided power imbalance -- unions -- happens to be the current target for destruction of the groups with which Koch most identifies).  That even Good, Liberal Democratic Politicians like Chris Dodd -- who has done some decent things in his career -- scamper out of the Senate to the nearest feeding hole, all to accelerate this process, underscores how potent a process it is.

* * * * *

Speaking of those feeding at the trough, The New York Times documents today the slew of highly-regarded lobbyists from both parties -- including John Podesta's brother, Tony -- who lobby on behalf of the Middle Eastern dictators who are the Villains of the Month.  It's amazing how easily the media reconciled its Middle East morality narrative (These Dictators are the Devils!!) with the fact that so many of American political elites -- both in and out of government -- have spent years keeping those very villains in power.

* * * * *

As I noted yesterday, for the week of March 7, I'll be speaking at several events in New Mexico and Texas; details are here.

Earlier today, Ian Hislop, editor of a magazine called Private Eye, published a lengthy article recounting what he claims are anti-Jewish remarks made to him by Julian Assange in a private telephone call (meaning a call in which only Hislop and Assange participated).  Hislop claims that Assange complained that an earlier Private Eye story about a Holocaust-denying, Russian WikiLeaks volunteer was part of an anti-Wikileaks conspiracy orchestrated by several Jewish editors and reporters at The Guardian, with whom Assange has been feuding.  

Assange vehemently denies the story as asserted by Hislop -- both its particulars and its general claims.  WikiLeaks, on its Twitter feed, quoted Assange as stating that "Hislop has distorted, invented or misremembered almost every significant claim and phrase"; that the "'Jewish conspiracy' [claim] is false, in spirit and in word. It is serious and upsetting"; and that "we treasure our strong Jewish support and staff, just as we treasure the support from pan-Arab democracy activists and others who share our hope for a just world."

So let's survey what we have:  Ian Hislop is making uncorroborated assertions about his conversation with Assange, while Assange is vehemently denying his claims.  Despite this he-said/he-said conflict -- which no known evidence can remotely resolve -- this is how The New York Times presented the story to its readers in its headline today:

I have no idea whether Assange said some, all or none of what's attributed to him by Hislop.  In my multiple interactions with him, I've never detected even a smidgen of such sentiments; that doesn't mean he didn't say these things:  it merely means what it means.   But The New York Times also has no idea whether Assange said any of this, yet they categorically announce in their headline -- as though it's a proven fact -- that Assange "Complain[ed] of a Jewish Smear Campaign."  Whether that actually happened is very much in dispute, and -- unlike the "torture" controversy, where it was established by decades of case law and the U.S.'s own pronouncements that Bush officials authorized torture -- the NYT has no basis whatsoever for resolving this dispute in favor of the accuser.  While the body of the article does note Assange's denial, the whole story is told from the perspective of Hislop, and the headline constitutes a baseless NYT endorsement of his version.

All of this relates directly to the journalistic biases discussed here yesterday.  Journalists and editors love to endlessly tout their own objectivity, yet their editorial conduct is so often driven by their sentiments and allegiances toward the parties involved in the story (just yesterday, the NYT used the word "torture" to describe Zimbabwe's actions because, it is claimed, "a dozen [] activists had been beaten with broomsticks, metal rods and blunt objects on their bodies and the soles of their feet" -- just as they freely apply the word to anyone that's not the U.S.).  Nobody -- not even the Guardians of the National Security State -- loathes Assange the way that journalists do; recall that they led the way in condemning him and calling for his prosecution for doing what they're supposed to do.  These Beacons of Objectivity thus use entirely different editorial standards -- far more unfavorable ones -- when reporting on him.

* * * * * 

In his statement today, Assange suggested the various campaigns to discredit him (including the new one today) are similar in kind to the recently revealed HB Gary schemes to destroy the reputations of his group and its supporters.  About that story, there are several recent developments:  (1) Aaron Barr, the CEO of HB Gary Federal resigned yesterday as a result of his involvement in this scandal; (2) The Washington Post reports today that numerous House Democrats have called for a Congressional investigation into the role played in these schemes by D.C. powerhouse lobbying and law firm Hunton & Williams; and (3) several ethical grievances have now been filed against Hunton & Williams partners involved in these schemes, which -- now that they are forced to respond -- should result in the disclosure of far more detailed information about what that firm did and what happened with these proposals.

 

UPDATE:  For those in New Mexico and Texas:  I'll be speaking at several events during the week of March 7 which are open to the public; details are here.

 

UPDATE II:  A commenter points out that Salon's article on this story does much the same thing in its headline as the NYT does, and indeed that's true (Salon: "Julian Assange says 'Jewish' conspiracy behind WikiLeaks smear campaign:  The WikiLeaks founder claims a 'Jewish' conspiracy is attempting to smear his organization").  Obviously, my critique applies equally to that headline.

UPDATE III:  Salon, to its credit, has now changed its headline as follows:

The NYT's remains unchanged.