Parent Advocates
Search All  
The goal of ParentAdvocates.org
is to put tax dollar expenditures and other monies used or spent by our federal, state and/or city governments before your eyes and in your hands.

Through our website, you can learn your rights as a taxpayer and parent as well as to which programs, monies and more you may be entitled...and why you may not be able to exercise these rights.

Mission Statement

Click this button to share this site...


Bookmark and Share











Who We Are »
Betsy Combier

Help Us to Continue to Help Others »
Email: betsy.combier@gmail.com

 
The E-Accountability Foundation announces the

'A for Accountability' Award

to those who are willing to whistleblow unjust, misleading, or false actions and claims of the politico-educational complex in order to bring about educational reform in favor of children of all races, intellectual ability and economic status. They ask questions that need to be asked, such as "where is the money?" and "Why does it have to be this way?" and they never give up. These people have withstood adversity and have held those who seem not to believe in honesty, integrity and compassion accountable for their actions. The winners of our "A" work to expose wrong-doing not for themselves, but for others - total strangers - for the "Greater Good"of the community and, by their actions, exemplify courage and self-less passion. They are parent advocates. We salute you.

Winners of the "A":

Johnnie Mae Allen
David Possner
Dee Alpert
Aaron Carr
Harris Lirtzman
Hipolito Colon
Larry Fisher
The Giraffe Project and Giraffe Heroes' Program
Jimmy Kilpatrick and George Scott
Zach Kopplin
Matthew LaClair
Wangari Maathai
Erich Martel
Steve Orel, in memoriam, Interversity, and The World of Opportunity
Marla Ruzicka, in Memoriam
Nancy Swan
Bob Witanek
Peyton Wolcott
[ More Details » ]
 
The Shamful Abuse of Bradley Manning
President Obama says that making Manning sleep naked and stand outside his cell without clothes is appropriate. He has lost most of America on that, including White House spokesman PJ Crowley who says this treatment of Manning “is ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid.” But what do you expect, when evidence clearly shows that Hilary and Bill Clinton used any tactic they could when they were in Washington to manipulate information and harm those who challenged them? That's what I think, Betsy Combier
          
Published on Friday, March 11, 2011 by Politico
State Dept. Spokesman Crowley Slams Pentagon on Treatment of Bradley Manning
by Ben Smith, Politico
LINK

The harsh conditions in which Bradley Manning, the accused WikiLeaks leaker, are being held have helped make him a cause celebre on parts of the left, but the complaints have generated little official government sympathy -- until now.

US State Department Spokesman PJ Crowley blasted the Pentagon for it's treatment of Bradley Manning. The BBC reporter Philippa Thomas, now a Nieman Journalism Fellow at Harvard University, reports on her personal blog on a conversation with State Department Spokesman PJ Crowley that doesn't seem to have been meant for public consumption, exactly, but which reflects deep divisions on Manning's treatment:

(O)ne young man said he wanted to address “the elephant in the room”. What did Crowley think, he asked, about Wikileaks? About the United States, in his words, “torturing a prisoner in a military brig”? Crowley didn’t stop to think. What’s being done to Bradley Manning by my colleagues at the Department of Defense “is ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid.” He paused. “None the less Bradley Manning is in the right place”. And he went on lengthening his answer, explaining why in Washington’s view, “there is sometimes a need for secrets… for diplomatic progress to be made”.

But still, he’d said it. And the fact he felt strongly enough to say it seems to me an extraordinary insight into the tensions within the administration over Wikileaks.

A few minutes later, I had a chance to ask a question. “Are you on the record?” I would not be writing this if he’d said no. There was an uncomfortable pause. “Sure.” So there we are.

Neither Crowley nor Defense Department spokesman Goeff Morrell responded immediately to an inquiry about the comment.

The State Department spokesman and the Prisoner in the Brig
Posted on March 10, 2011 by philippathomas
LINK

I just heard an extraordinary remark from State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley. He was speaking to a small audience at MIT on “the benefits of new media as it relates to foreign policy”, an event organised by the Center for Future Civic Media.

Around twenty of us were sitting around the table listening to his views on social media, the impact of the Twittersphere, the Arab uprisings, and so on, in a vast space-age conference room overlooking the Charles River and the Boston skyline. And then, inevitably, one young man said he wanted to address “the elephant in the room”. What did Crowley think, he asked, about Wikileaks? About the United States, in his words, “torturing a prisoner in a military brig”? Crowley didn’t stop to think. What’s being done to Bradley Manning by my colleagues at the Department of Defense “is ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid.” He paused. “None the less Bradley Manning is in the right place”. And he went on lengthening his answer, explaining why in Washington’s view, “there is sometimes a need for secrets… for diplomatic progress to be made”.

But still, he’d said it. And the fact he felt strongly enough to say it seems to me an extraordinary insight into the tensions within the administration over Wikileaks.

A few minutes later, I had a chance to ask a question. “Are you on the record?” I would not be writing this if he’d said no. There was an uncomfortable pause. “Sure.” So there we are.

March 11, 2011
Obama Defends Detention Conditions for Soldier Accused in WikiLeaks Case
By SCOTT SHANE, NY Times
LINK

WASHINGTON — President Obama has defended conditions in a Marine Corps jail for Pfc. Bradley E. Manning, who is accused of leaking classified government documents to WikiLeaks. The president said Friday that he had been assured that such measures as forcing Private Manning to sleep without clothing were justified and for his own safety.

“With respect to Private Manning, I have actually asked the Pentagon whether or not the procedures that have been taken in terms of his confinement are appropriate and are meeting our basic standards,” Mr. Obama said at a news conference. “They assure me that they are.”

“I can’t go into details about some of their concerns,” he added, “but some of this has to do with Private Manning’s safety as well.” He appeared to be referring to fears that Private Manning might harm himself, though the private, his friends and his lawyer have all denied that he is suicidal.

The question to Mr. Obama was prompted by critical comments from Philip J. Crowley, the top State Department spokesman, about Private Manning’s treatment. In a talk at M.I.T., Mr. Crowley called the treatment “ridiculous, counterproductive and stupid,” and he said he did not understand Defense Department officials’ reasons for imposing it, according to people present. Mr. Crowley later said he was expressing his personal views.

Starting on March 2, Private Manning was forced by guards at the Marine Corps brig at Quantico, Va., to sleep without clothing at night, though he has a blanket and in recent days has been given a “tear-proof smock” to wear at night, according to a Defense Department spokesman, Col. David Lapan.

“Pfc. Manning is being treated fairly, with dignity and respect,” Colonel Lapan said. “All measures in place are to ensure his safety and security.”

A document made public on Thursday by Private Manning’s lawyer, David E. Coombs, said the nighttime stripping began as a result of a sarcastic quip from the imprisoned soldier about concerns that he might kill himself.

On March 2, a brig officer had told him his treatment would not change because “the brig simply considered me a risk of self-harm,” Private Manning wrote in the document, which was filed as part of a formal complaint to military officials. “Out of frustration, I responded that the POI restrictions were absurd and sarcastically told him if I really wanted to harm myself, I could conceivably do so with the elastic waistband of my underwear or with my flip-flops.” The initials refer to “prevention of injury,” a status that restricts items in Private Manning’s cell and requires guards to check him constantly.

Private Manning’s lawyer and supporters have complained for months about his conditions, which they describe as effectively solitary confinement, since he is kept in his cell 23 hours a day and has almost no contact with other detainees.

Brig officials have said he is not in solitary confinement but is being treated as required for prisoners classified as “maximum custody” and placed on prevention-of-injury watch. Private Manning’s lawyer has challenged both designations as unjustified.

According to Private Manning’s written account, a brig psychiatrist recommended continuing the prevention-of-injury status for Private Manning in December, but in January decided it should be ended, a recommendation ignored by brig commanders. After the March 2 incident, the psychiatrist assessed Private Manning as “low risk,” the document says.

Private Manning was arrested last May and accused of downloading several hundred thousand diplomatic cables and classified reports on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and providing them to WikiLeaks, the anti-secrecy group. If he is convicted of the charges at a court-martial, he could face life in prison.

Pentagon hunts WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in bid to gag website

This shameful abuse of Bradley Manning
The WikiLeaks suspect's mistreatment amounts to torture. Either President Obama knows this or he should make it his business
Daniel Ellsberg, Guardian UK
LINK
Bradley Manning has been forced to sleep naked in his cell, according to his lawyers. President Obama says he has been assured that Manning's prison conditions 'are appropriate and are meeting our basic standards'.

President Obama tells us that he's asked the Pentagon whether the conditions of confinement of Bradley Manning, the soldier charged with leaking state secrets, "are appropriate and are meeting our basic standards. They assure me that they are."

If Obama believes that, he'll believe anything. I would hope he would know better than to ask the perpetrators whether they've been behaving appropriately. I can just hear President Nixon saying to a press conference the same thing: "I was assured by the the White House Plumbers that their burglary of the office of Daniel Ellsberg's doctor in Los Angeles was appropriate and met basic standards."

When that criminal behaviour ordered from the Oval Office came out, Nixon faced impeachment and had to resign. Well, times have changed. But if President Obama really doesn't yet know the actual conditions of Manning's detention – if he really believes, as he's said, that "some of this [nudity, isolation, harassment, sleep-deprivation] has to do with Private Manning's wellbeing", despite the contrary judgments of the prison psychologist – then he's being lied to, and he needs to get a grip on his administration.

If he does know, and agrees that it's appropriate or even legal, that doesn't speak well for his memory of the courses he taught on constitutional law.

The president refused to comment on PJ Crowley's statement that the treatment of Manning is "ridiculous, counterproductive and stupid". Those words are true enough as far as they go – which is probably about as far as a state department spokesperson can allow himself to go in condemning actions of the defence department. But at least two other words are called for: abusive and illegal.

Crowley was responding to a question about the "torturing" of an American citizen, and, creditably, he didn't rebut that description. Prolonged isolation, sleep deprivation, nudity – that's right out of the manual of the CIA for "enhanced interrogation". We've seen it applied in Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib. It's what the CIA calls "no-touch torture", and its purpose there, as in this case, is very clear: to demoralise someone to the point of offering a desired confession. That's what they are after, I suspect, with Manning. They don't care if the confession is true or false, so long as it implicates WikiLeaks in a way that will help them prosecute Julian Assange.

That's just my guess, as to their motives. But it does not affect the illegality of the behaviour. If I'm right, it's likely that such harsh treatment wasn't ordered at the level of a warrant officer or the brig commander. The fact that they have continued to inflict such suffering on the prisoner despite weeks of complaint from his defence counsel, harsh publicity and condemnation from organisations such as Amnesty International, suggests to me that it might have come from high levels of the defence department or the justice department, if not from the White House itself.

It's no coincidence that it's someone from the state department who has gone off-message to speak out about this. When a branch of the US government makes a mockery of our pretensions to honour the rule of law, specifically our obligation not to use torture, the state department bears the brunt of that, as it affects our standing in the world.

The fact that Manning's abusive mistreatment is going on at Quantico – where I spent nine months as a Marine officer in basic school – and that Marines are lying about it, makes me feel ashamed for the Corps. Just three years as an infantry officer was more than enough time for me to know that what is going on there is illegal behaviour that must be stopped and disciplined.

 
© 2003 The E-Accountability Foundation