Bradley Manning Show Trial begins in Maryland; Radio NZ’s “U.S. correspondent” doesn’t want to know about it Nine to Noon, Radio New Zealand National, Tuesday 4 June 2013
Today the obscene, Stalinist persecution of Bradley Manning comes to a head with the start of his show trial in Fort Meade, Maryland. So naturally, when Kathryn Ryan talks with “U.S. correspondent” Jack Hitt for ten minutes this morning, it will be all about the show trial. Right?
Wrong. Here are the highlights….
KATHRYN RYAN: We go now to our United States correspondent, Jack Hitt. What’s happening, Jack? JACK HITT: Are you a Game of Thrones fan, Kathryn? KATHRYN RYAN: Why yes I am!
Hitt then spends a considerable amount of time filling her in on something that has annoyed the Throners in the United States recently. It’s an utterly dull, obscure and trivial thing to go on about, especially on the day that an American hero is being crucified….
JACK HITT: The Twittersphere’s on FIRE about this!
….[Awkward extended pause]….
RYAN: Right, we’ll move on to more pleasant topics, like Obama’s drones policy. The latest thing that made my hair stand on end was the President saying these drones could be used on AMERICAN SOIL!
Cue another long and not very enlightened monologue from Hitt. The problem for both Ryan and Hitt seems to be the killing of AMERICAN CITIZENS. The moral and legal outrage of using them against Pakistani and Afghani civilians doesn’t seem to worry either of them.
HITT: On the weekend there was a drone strike against a Taliban leader in Afghanistan. RYAN: It was Eric Holder the Attorney General who said that drone strikes on American soil might be acceptable in a 9/11 type scenario. HITT: Obama’s been incredibly opaque in his responses. I mean, they have killed AMERICAN CITIZENS!
….[Long, thoughtful pause to indicate moral seriousness]….
RYAN: Does anybody remember Watergate? HITT:[with fervent sincerity] Yeah, actually, I think they do…
Hitt wanders off on another long digression. Anything to avoid talking about the Bradley Manning show trial.
Ironically, just before these two airheads vapoured on about the heroism of the American press, the target of the Watergate burglaries, Daniel Ellsberg, was on television. He was protesting at the show-trial of Bradley Manning. I do not think that either Hitt or Ryan would have registered the irony.
RYAN: Interesting times! Jack, good to talk to you. We’ll catch up about China next time!
Er, having heard the conversation, can I just point out that Morrissey’s highlights bear little resemblance to what was actually said. eg, Ryan did not claim to be a fan of Game of Thrones, whatever that is. And there was no evidence that Jack Hitt was deliberately ignoring the Manning trial, anymore than he ignored the weather, South Sydney’s excellent NRL form or the colour of my socks.
Discussing the use of drones on US soil, however, was an excellent topic, because clearly, that’s a gamechanger precisely because it ties actual deaths in Iraq et al to potential deaths in the States. It brings the reality of drones to the American people. Shame you missed that point, Moz. Perhaps if you dialed back the faux outrage and actually listened to what was being said, you might find the radio quite enlightening.
Ryan did not claim to be a fan of Game of Thrones, whatever that is.
Okay, you’re right there, no doubt. I thought she said that. But I concede to your sharp ears, my friend. Right, that’s the trivial stuff out of the way.
And there was no evidence that Jack Hitt was deliberately ignoring the Manning trial, anymore than he ignored the weather…
Errrr, yes there WAS evidence that he deliberately ignored the Manning show trial. The evidence is that he did not talk about it. Similarly, supporters of the Soviet state deliberately ignored inconvenient and troubling aspects of the USSR in the 1930s.
Discussing the use of drones on US soil, however, was an excellent topic… Shame you missed that point, Moz.
I did not miss it. In fact, I cover their shallow discussion of it in my rush transcript.
Perhaps if you dialed back the faux outrage…
“Faux outrage”? You think I’m joking about the triviality, dishonesty and utter lack of responsible discussion on our public radio?
…and actually listened to what was being said, you might find the radio quite enlightening.
I listened to what was being said, all right. As so often is the case, it’s what they deliberately did not say that is interesting.
Even in the depths of your paranoia, a small part of you must understand that if people don’t talk about what you think they should talk about, it’s not actually evidence of a conspiracy. Still, it’s nice that Jenny has someone on her wavelength.
Your urge to trivialize and your attempts to derail serious discussions are beneath contempt. What is paranoid about what I wrote? Do you even understand what the word means?
You think they just “forgot” to talk about it, do you?
Sorry, Bud, but I am not trivialising anything. The nature of a catch up with a correspondent in a show such as Nine to Noon by definition is lightweight. Its a skim through a few subjects in a few minutes.
If you want more depth, or other issues that are dear to your heart discussed, I suggest you apply for a job as Ryan’s producer*. Till then, you’ll just have to live with the fact the Game of Thorns is more important to most radio listeners than Manning, who isn’t actually being lynched, but, instead, is being tried for releasing materials he knew he wasn’t supposed to release.
Yes, you are. Instead of entering into a serious and respectful dialogue, you abused me, and picked on the most trivial slip-up.
The nature of a catch up with a correspondent in a show such as Nine to Noon by definition is lightweight.
“By definition”. What tosh!
Its [sic] a skim through a few subjects in a few minutes.
It certainly is with Kathryn Ryan. You might accept such low standards; I and many other concerned listeners most certainly do not.
Till then, you’ll just have to live with the fact the Game of Thorns is more important to most radio listeners than Manning,
You just said yourself that you had no idea what it was! Hardly anybody watches it, either here or in the U.S. But that doesn’t matter; what’s important is that it furnishes a chance to talk about anything except the vengeance being exacted by the state on a dissenter. THAT is boring—according to the likes of you.
….who isn’t actually being lynched,
It is an attempted lynching, run by the U.S. government. But I guess that, with your track record, you feel honor-bound, if that’s the right expression, to endorse it.
Lordy, how isolated from the average Kiwi you sound! Like Ryan, I’ve heard of Game of Thorns because it’s omniprescent at the moment. It is by a factor of thousands more important to kiwis than Manning. And I know this without ever seeing a single ep. because it’s the show du jour, Moz. You really should get out more or possibly stay in more, it’s hard to tell.
And you completely misunderstand Ryan’s show. The clue is in the name, which references the timeslot. It usually starts with follow ups to one or two big news stories then moves on to lighter stuff. That’s a pretty normal formula for a mid morning show on a talk station anywhere on this blue planet.
They have isolated, and physically and mentally abused and tortured him during his incarceration. They have tried to humiliate him, and have repeatedly stated, without evidence of course, that he is psychologically faltering. That was standard Soviet modus operandi for treating dissidents, of course.
Whether or not they do what the haters of liberty want them to do and kill him is really beside the point; by locking up this dangerous young truth-teller, they are effectively murdering dissent, and freedom, and human rights.
The point, CV, is that this stuff is serious. The way we talk about it matters. Morissey’s overwrought nonsense hurts insofar that people who know a bit about it will be see how much he overcooks it and be turned off.
It’s like the truther garbage. It taints actual critical discussion by making it seem like fantasist nonsense.
There has been an argument made that Manning witnessed war crimes and therefore had a duty to report them. He reported to his superiors and was told to take things no further. This order was then illegal. Without recourse within the chain of command, he fulfilled his obligation by releasing the evidence to Wikileaks. On this basis, you could argue that he knew he was supposed to release the material.
By no means am I a lawyer, let alone a specialist in US military law or the Geneva Convention, but I think Manning did the right thing. I like to think I’d be courageous enough to do the same, and I applaud him.
That is no evidence of intent. There are reasons for not mentioning something other than deliberately suppressing it.
Yes, there was a really important discussion about Game of Thrones that just had to be completed. Much more interesting than the public lynching of a dissident.
Dead right. And if he’d only raised the issues through army channels or through his state or federal representatives he wouldn’t be going to jail for the rest of his life. Don’t forget, he leaked everything he had, not just the specifics of abuses. More fool him for trusting Saint Jules not to dob him in, too.
It was not WLO that dobbed him in, Manning states he did not use the TOR anonymizer when uploading the main file dump. I understand that he was identified through regular investigative methods.
And if he’d only raised the issues through army channels or through his state or federal representatives he wouldn’t be going to jail for the rest of his life.
You have to be kidding me. Do you believe that Manning would be off scot free if he did as you said? At least Manning is not as naive as you, given that he understands how the US military and government deliberately prosecuted this war from the start.
Also you’re complaining that Manning didn’t follow correct channels when multiple war crimes against civilians were being committed. Seriously. What are correct channels when war crimes against civilians are being committed? Writing a letter to your local congressman? Or to your CO?
What channels? Re-read my comment. Manning had choices, lawful and unlawful, and took the dumbest option. For all its faults, the US military does prosecute its own and does listen to whistleblowers. The heroism of those who spoke out about the My Lai massacre shows that to be the case.
For all its faults, the US military does prosecute its own and does listen to whistleblowers.
I cannot believe anyone can be so dishonest as to write something like that sentence. You really need to think about what you are saying, and perhaps more importantly, why you are saying it.
I’m pretty sure I was the first, Lanth! I have a vague memory of Moz calling me something like that (liar of the week?) a couple of years ago in a forerunner of the current selection of People Who Confuse Moz. I think P’s B also made the shortlist.
I’m pretty sure I was the first, Lanth! I have a vague memory of Moz calling me something like that (liar of the week?) a couple of years ago in a forerunner of the current selection of People Who Confuse Moz. I think P’s B also made the shortlist.
Actually, Te Reo, I don’t think you or Pascal’s Bookie did feature in “LIAR WATCH”, the 2012 feature that is the predecessor to today’s “Liars of Our Time” series. But several of our good buddies did….
Careful TRP, you’re going to end up on “Liars of our Time”.
I do not think our friend Te Reo is a liar like, say, “Sir” Graham Henry or Henry Kissinger. Mere credulity and cowardice do not in themselves meet the criteria.
If Thompson hadn’t spoken out, there may well have been no prosecutions over My Lai. If he hadn’t landed his helicopter and stopped American troops by pointing machine guns at them, there would have been more murdered Vietnamese. There was still a movement to court martial him and he received numerous death threats.
And if he’d only raised the issues through army channels or through his state or federal representatives he wouldn’t be going to jail for the rest of his life.
Enjoy your vacation at the dacha, Comrade! You have earned it with your steadfast loyalty.
If only those Jewish doctors had your ironclad devotion to the Holy State!
As I understand it, there’s a large number of charges. Manning has pleaded guilty to some and not guilty to others.The main focus of the defense will be on whether the leaks aided the enemy.
Enlistment Oath.— Each person enlisting in an armed force shall take the following oath:
“I, XXXXXXXXXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
If you have never read it, here is Manning’s [redacted] statement. It explains why he has plead guilty to some charges but will not plead guilty to others.
Radio NZ’s “U.S. correspondent” doesn’t want to know about it
Nine to Noon, Radio New Zealand National, Tuesday 4 June 2013
JACK HITT: Are you a Game of Thrones fan, Kathryn?
KATHRYN RYAN: Why yes I am!
RYAN: It was Eric Holder the Attorney General who said that drone strikes on American soil might be acceptable in a 9/11 type scenario.
HITT: Obama’s been incredibly opaque in his responses. I mean, they have killed AMERICAN CITIZENS!
HITT: [with fervent sincerity] Yeah, actually, I think they do…
A. Yes.
Q. Did you send files to anyone?
A. Yes.
It explains why he has plead guilty to some charges but will not plead guilty to others.