Looks like I’m trying to be a one-person analyser of Crowley’s statement.  And
by the way, please forgive the typos in previous.  Too much in a hurry.  It’s just
that Crowley’s statement offers an excellent and rare glimpse of how the
“inside” thinks—and doesn’t think. especially on matters that are controversial
within the sanctum sanctorum of government.  Of course Crowley is to be
commended—that goes without saying—but the way people phrase things
even bordering on “official” statements is as important as what they actually say
(which is not usually very transparent). 

Rereading the NPR report, I noticed another remark, this time theirs,  that
deserves a little scrutiny.  They commented to this effect:  “Once again Obama
has chosen to place himself on the wrong side of history.” 

As if personally going down in history as a “hero” or a “fool” is the primary
issue here!
No.  The primary issue is that Obama made (again) the immoral choice, and in
doing so he put the U.S. once again on the side of torture.  Seems like media
and those who rabidly defend anything the U.S. does, even if its immoral and
self-defeating,  will do/say anything to dig our diplomatic hole deeper.  And
then jail people who try to lift the country up to fairness, openness and
decency.

Take a second look at Crpwleu’s last two sentences and how they directly relate
to, and indirectly support the Cable releases:
1.  Referencee to te “relentless media environment” implying, maybe, how
difficult it is to get information and report it. Followed by a tribute to reporters
“who report on foreign policy and global developments.”  (Most ordinary
reporting depends on “leaks” obtained one by one from anonymous individuals
who wish “not to be identified.”  Presumably much of this comes from
“classified” sources, which accounts for the desire to be anonymous.)
2 Then “their efforts” (reporters, that is)  ” help make governments more
responsible and transparent.”  Exactly Assange’s stated aim—if he ever gets a
chance to make that point clear to all concerned.  So far, the broad assumption
is that he “betrayed” some information that harmed the U.S.  That assumption
is wrong, but it scares people, so it is an “interpretation” that favors secrecy
over openness.
3.  It’s the secrecy that is dangerous.

Libya is a socialist state?  The workers own and control their means of production?  That certainly has not been my impression.  How is that consistent with a dictator?

Spot on,JDmysticDJ !!!!!!

Obama has banned torture, and black site torture facilities, Obama states his support for the Geneva Convention, and human rights organizations regarding torture, but Obama is clearly duplicitous, and progressive humanitarians rightly condemn Obama’s foreign policy and national security actions.

I believe that Bradley Manning was motivated by progressive humanitarian concerns, and that Crowley was correct in pointing out the barbaric treatment of Manning, but that Crowley by his own
comments: “‘Nonetheless Bradley Manning is in the right place,’ he said, stating that secrets are sometimes necessary in the diplomatic arena” shows himself to be in need of further enlightenment, or in need of greater courage, in respect to advancing humanitarian goals. 

Obama is only slightly better than the viable political alternative on these issues, and enlightened progressive humanitarians are left with no hope, and nothing but despair.

As opinion in the West moves closer and closer to the belief that only Westernization will provide the final solution to the Arab/Muslim problem, prospects for a peaceful solution based on mutual respect and self-determination become more and more remote.

It’s often said that the first causality of war is the truth. I firmly believe that what is occurring in Libya is civil war, and not an all encompassing rejection of Kaddafi by the Libyan people. As I write this, thousands of Libyan citizens have gathered around Kaddafi, to protect him. Unlike Egypt, Kaddafi has the total support of the Libyan Military, and much of the Libyan populace. As of now, there are no Libyan pilots defecting to the West, and I do not believe that military attacks from the West will lead to such actions. Because of past Western actions in Arab/Muslim lands there is animosity towards the Western Powers, and Kaddafi has positioned himself in opposition to Western Powers, garnering support from a sizable number of Libyan citizens, and from others throughout North Africa, and beyond.

The West has issued an ultimatum to Kaddafi, a la George H.W. Bush’s ultimatum to Saddam Hussein, which can only result in Kaddafi’s abdication and prosecution, or continuing civil war. Current humanitarian concerns for the Libyan people are well intentioned, but military action against Kaddafi by the West will only aggravate the problems, increase the suffering and anti-West animosity, leading to unforeseen consequences, and continuing strife and dire realities.

A cruise missile directed at a secret Kaddafi location, resulting in Kaddafi’s death will accomplish nothing except the possible, but unlikely, crumbling of Kaddafi’s regime, or: internecine warfare, chaotic wide scale violence, the necessity of Western/Arab League occupation, political chaos, and insurrection. The Arab League varies in its constituency from Secular to Sharia and democratic to monarchical and the hope of achieving universally agreed upon consensus regarding the restructuring of Libya seems futile, and I believe any hope of avoiding future insurrection and extremist activities because of intervention is clearly a futile hope.

What is not discussed is that Libya is a socialist state, and that Syria and Algeria, both Arab League members and socialist states, have opposed intervention in Libya. It should be apparent that political ideology weighs heavily, and that the Arab Monarchies and Arab anti-Socialist states would like to see Kaddafi removed.

The deafening roar of Western hypocrisy regarding foreign policy in Arab/Muslim lands can not be muted by continuing present policies. There are no ideal solutions to the Libyan problem, unless the ideals of non-intervention and the self determination of peoples would be the governing ideals of Western foreign policy.

(More.)

(Cont.) 

As I write this, the ultimatum has become moot. U.S. Warships have launched in these first hours, 110 Tomahawk Cruise Missiles at a cost of $569,000 each, you do the math. Libyan sites designed to protect Libyan soil from air attack are now under attack from U.S. warships, people will die and charges of collateral damage are already being made.

Our military leaders are calling this latest military action “Odyssey Dawn.”

od•ys•sey

1. An extended adventurous voyage or trip.

2. An intellectual or spiritual quest. an odyssey of discovery.

I fear that the “Dawn” of this new day will bring gloom and very little sunshine, that the adventure will be in the final analysis, foolhardy, and that any discovery will be less than pleasant. If my fears are warranted, I’ll proffer that people from the Left who support this military action will find themselves with the same regrets as many of the 92% of Americans who supported the invasion of Afghanistan, along with many of those Americans who supported the invasion of Iraq, but, this dubious “adventure” has begun, and one can only hope that this folly will not have the dire consequences of previous follies, but it’s clear to me that folly is marching on.

Regarding the statement: “Secrets are sometimes necessary.”  Assange himself
has said this in several interviews I have seen online. That is not, was not, the
problem.  The problem was—and still is—that when far too much is “under
cover” from the people, they are robbed of the chance to govern themselves;
they have no possibility ad “advise” but only to “consent” in ignorance.

Of course there’s a problem with “sometimes” necessary.  So exctly what is
“necessary”, what can be optionally secret, and what must be kept confidential
needs to be discussed, agreed upon as specifically as possible, and widely
understood, accepted and legalized.

Torture, for example, is a policy that is almost completely shrouded, and even
the discussion of its rampant use during recent years has not been openly
admitted and considered.  Facts regarding torture, particularly its lack of
effectiveness and its counter-productiveness are not understood widely
enough except among a majority of psychiatrists and psychologists whose
fact-based opinion is not widely enough publicized.

It wpuld have been achingly difficult to bring George Bush and his “extra-
ordinary rendition” enthusiasts to trial, yet if that had been done, the country
would have survived, having at least admitted those crimes, and our sinking
reputation would be the better for it.  The effects of cowardice are cumulative,
and now we not only have the enormously dangerous problems of people
remaining imprisoned for years and years with no charges, no fair trials, and
practically no chance of release.  In addition, our “normal” prison system is
contaminated by years of neglect, not wanting to face the cruelties and
injustices perpetrated there by a system that actually profits from keeping
people in prison. 

By this time, considering our recent history, the U.S. has a mountain of
mistakes, misjudgments and misbehavior to account for—all of it due to a
creeping cut-back of intercommunication between the people and those who
prefer to rule over them rather than work with them.  If the government will
not open channels of communication, if media will not help the public do this,
than the government will fail and the country will disintegrate into antagonistic
factions.

What would help the most is more honest intercommunication and less
“feeding people what the government wants them to know”.  True, the people
have a lot of catching up to do, but the first helpful step could and should
come from the government in a “Declaration of Interdependence” and an
opening of Congressional, Judiciary and Administrative doors.  If the people
were empowered, it would make huge differences in what happens next.

Having just watched a documentary regarding Daniel
Ellsberg and his leak of the ‘Pentagon Papers,’
brings to mind the ability of one person,
specifically the ‘leaker’ to influence public
opinion.
The supposed leak by PFC. Bradley Manning, of the
‘State Department’ papers, has galvanized world
opinion against the US and its foreign policy.
We are now faced with a maelstrom of adverse public
opinion against the very notion of the US acting as a
world leader. This may be the very thing that causes
the US to stop acting as the policeman of the world
and start acting again as a member of the world
community.
Rampant abuse of the State Dept. by its own members
for the sole purpose of self-aggrandizement, has
always been an unwritten policy, yet unbeknown to the
public at large, this has been going on since the
formation of the US as a nation.
How can the US repair its damaged reputation? Stop
the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and the soon to be war
in Iran. Apologize to the nations of the world. Give
full account of the war crimes committed by the
former administration and current administration.
Prosecute, or hand over for prosecution those who
have committed acts of terrorism and war crimes, and
crimes against humanity. We can repair our
reputation, only by ‘fessin’ up to the world the
crimes committed by our government. This is the only
way out of the current. Also one other thing, stop
the illegal and unethical prosecution of Julian
Assange and PFC. Bradley Manning. These acts will
cement our reputation as a nation of laws and one who
is committed to the proposition that no one person,
whomever they are is above the law and international
law.

Crowley’s statement bears scrutiny.  He aimed his remarks at “the broader,
even strategic impact ” of what national security agencies did every day that
impacted “our global standing and leadership.”  Meaning?  Not only the routine
of every-day, mundane business as usual of “foreign policy” but the daily, and
too-often missed,  opportunities for mutual understanding, for growth in
international understanding and the strengthening of possibilities for peace It
is the failures of our foreign policy “experts” to recognize and develop those
missed opportunities that destroys our “global standing and leadership.”

And it is just these very failures that the release of the cables was meant to
highlight.  If these shortcomings are overlooked, and instead our foreign policy
experts are allowed to persist in tactics as counterproductive as deceit, graft,
half-truths, misunderstandings and prejudices (so clearly revealed in the
Leaks), and if our national methods of operation are not exposed and corrected
(through public understanding of the need for improvement and pressures to
bring about change) how are we to get beyond vicious competitiveness, error
and the desire for those errors to be avenged?

We have come upon a serious opportunity for improvement.  The need for
open admission of mistakes and the faith that international relations can be
improved by openness is vital to the human future.  Crowley was exactly right
insofar as he may have realized that punishment, especially arbitrary and
unjust persecution of suspected “leakers” is contrary to our national interest.

Nevertheless, in my opinion he is only partly right in that he fails to admit
that the Leaks themselves open the path to a foreign policy reform that
would not have been possible without them.  It is entirely possible that the
foreseeable trajectory of U.S. politics hinges on an accurate realization of the
value of openness and citizen participation in democratic governments, valid
not only for the U.S. but for every country aspiring to achieve more just
societies and to “study war no more.”

The point to remember is that the Leaks exposed material concerning petty
deals, accusations and snide, superficial personal assessments of “diplomats”
who “play the game” of international relations behind closed doors.  Ordinarily
people have no access to this routine and its exposure would help them to
know things they need to know in order to manage their governments.

Of course their governments don’t want to be managed by the people.  That
would be democracy.  And, sad to say, many people do not want to manage
their governments.  That leads to dictatorship.  If people do not or cannot
recognize the opportunity—no, the necessity—for them to pay attention to
the significance of this chance to participate and take control (means let
government officials know by any and every means possible that you want a
fairer, deeper, more intelligent and compassionate foreign policy immediately
and from now on)—if people choose to miss this opportunity and instead,
permit the punishment of the messsengers—it will take a lot more work later
on.

That an official of our government was forced to resign after stating a personal opinion contrary to the policies of his employer, our government, is mundane enough.

That the topic is torture, that the policy condones , even abets, such treatment, is the issue. Every single member of our government, up to and including our Chief Executive, should be made to publicly state his/her position on torture.