1641

Really? You think that the President can’t simply tell the person in charge “No more making Manning stand naked in front of his cell or any other abusive treatment. By my orders as Commander in Chief.” You think that is more difficult than deciding to send more military troops into Afghanistan, for example?

And you think that if the President told the person in charge to stop abusing Manning and just treat him like any other prisoner being held for trial, they would tell him “Sorry, but the polls say that the American people don’t mind me abusing him, so I refuse to obey that order?” Really???

I am totally baffled by your thought process, Jason. Let’s play it this way: assume that tomorrow Obama calls the top guy in charge of what’s going on in his office. He says “Starting now: no more making Manning stand in front of his cell naked, no sleep deprivation, just treat him like a standard prisoner waiting for trial. Now. That’s an order, given to you by the Commander in Chief, not open to debate. I will make sure that this order is obeyed. That is all - dismissed.”

So Obama gives that order - let’s not talk ephemeral, amorphous generalities, but this specific issue. Obama gives that order today. We’re not talking about releasing him or letting him escape trial and conviction and sentence. Just don’t abuse him while he’s waiting for trial. What do you think will happen? What will be the negative that will happen that has you complicit and agreeable with Obama’s decision to do nothing?

Are you going to now hold Republicans and Democrats to the same standard? Is it worse for Republicans to torture people in Gitmo because they sincerely believe it is the right thing to do, or Democrats to do nothing about it even though they believe it is evil, because they are afraid 53% of the public will disagree with them?

1642

And then he’s disobeyed, and it reaches the press, and the president’s office is weakened by a considerable factor because it’s in the press that “the military ignored a direct order”, and then…

It’s one thing to open fucking Guantanamo, it’s one thing to invade a country on false pretenses… It’s quite another, and much harder to do, to reverse course on both those instances. Much less so when you’re perceived as inherently weak.

1643

Or - they obey him. That is much more likely. Then what?

Good grief, people. You are trying to tell me Obama can’t even tell the military to not abuse a single prisoner?

1644

I don’t think that’s a very likely outcome in that scenario.

1645

I agree. I am flabbergasted that people are so willing to give Obama excuses for not taking action on the simplest of things. “I will not accept that this prisoner is abused while in your custody. That is an order. Dismissed.”

And then he is run out of office, the Republicans get 100% of the Senate, and the Democratic party is forced to dissolve, apparently.

1646

Maybe it’s a similar situation that Democrats were in back in the 50’s - 60’s. The Republicans hammered them so much on being soft on Communism, they ended up taking more and more radical positions so that couldn’t be used against them (and thus two democractic presidents got us hopelessly involved in Vietnam).

I do agree with Jeff - it seems like a no brainer. Rule of Law and all that jazz.

1647

Often times the right choice is not the easy one. Which is explains why so many politicians choose easy over right so often.

Obama could of the bullshit surrounding Manning stopped yesterday. Instead, he fires people that speak out about the situation. That sure as hell is not campaign Obama…

1648

You might want to stop stamping your feet and actual read what I’m writing. The President doesn’t do it because the President doesn’t want to. The reason he doesn’t want to is the public would disapprove and negatively impact his re-election chance. Another reason is we tend not to elect Presidents who buck broad public opinion. Another is this President specifically is not ideologically or psychologically the kind of person who does that sort of thing.

The Cossacks work for the Czar.

1649

Sure, but after the inauguration he became privy to the super-secret terrorism information that they can’t tell you about, but which totally justifies (nay, demands!) that Bradley Manning be kept in solitary confinement like a supermax prisoner and not be allowed clothes. This keeps you safe. You’re welcome.

1650

I think the disconnect here is you’re equating his (alleged) mistreatment with with the public not liking wikileaks. These two things do not go hand in hand. Convict him and throw away the key, but there’s no reason for him to be treated any worse than any other prisoner.

1651

There’s no rational reason for it, but if Obama changes it he’ll catch hell.

1652

Then why was the Quantico brig commander fired in January, after the Pentagon admitted he inappropriately put Manning on suicide watch? They also quickly downgraded his status to “prevention of injury” watch. Where was the outcry?

Manning’s treatment has nothing to do with fear of political repercussion.

1653

So what? I say this a person aware of the political implications, but am beyond caring what the delicates of the situation are.

If Obama started right now, today, started acting like a prinicpled person, who stood up for he believed was right and quit playing politics…well, he would probably end up in a pile of flames come the next election, but he could actually get some real stuff done while he was in office.

Again, playing the game is more important than results or beliefs.

1654

You think that, and I’d be all for it, but he consistently acts like he disagrees.

1655

No, he would still win the next election, and he knows it. Realistically, the GOP prospects for the presidency in 2012 are bleak.

Just like on TARP and HCR, Obama is following principle rather than popular opinion. He’s just not that into libertarian principles.

1656

Me not having to freak out about losing my job and thus my health insurance. DADT and Gates’ military reforms in general. Stem cell research. Supreme Court. An attempt, at least, at financial reform.

1657

Bull Shit.

Who are the people who would vote for Obama now who would NOT vote for him if he told the military to stop making Manning stand naked for hours in front of his cell?

1658

Nationalist independents who think he’s a traitor.

1659

I see we greatly differ on what it means to be principled and stand up for what is decent and right. Because if you believe Obama has been doing that…then well, I have swamp land in FL to sell you.

Do not get me wrong, Obama is easily better than any Republican taken as a whole. But compared against campaign Obama or compared against someone who cares about and watches out for the little man, he is basically a corporate entity who dares to go outside of the boundaries of what the corporations tell him from time to time, but only slightly.

Your example of TARP is great. Just enough effort to recover the country, hopefully, but in this case, recover the country means make sure Wall Street is doing well. Main street, to steal corporate media phrases, was and has been left to fend for itself. America looked to corporations to save them and got further into bed with them on almost seemingly every decision Obama has made.

1660

Obama is principled in the same sense that Goldwater was principled. You don’t have to agree with him to understand where his motivations are coming from. In this sense he is very different from Bill Clinton, and more like FDR.

He is not a stymied populist or a small-l libertarian whose behavior is constrained by the polls. Even as a Senator, he was a corporatist with little interest in curbing executive authority. For better or for worse, he is going to keep doing what he’s doing for the next six years regardless of the political environment.