INFORMedia - alternative free media news and reviews - during times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act

 

The ruling is but the latest repudiation of claims from Obama supporters that Manning was treated fairly and justly

Article by Glenn Greenwald

 

"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. They assure me that they are." - Barack Obama, White House Press Conference, March 10, 2011.

January 09, 2013 "The Guardian' --  Few if any articles that I've written produced as much backlash as my 15 December 2010 column reporting on the oppressive and inhumane conditions of Bradley Manning's detention, the first time that story was reported. The anger at my article primarily came not from right-wing venues but from the hardest-core Obama supporters, who (as they always do since 20 January 2009) reflexively defended the US government. Led by former Obama campaign press aide and now MSNBC contributor (the ultimate redundancy) Joy Reid, these particularly fanatical Democratic partisans literally adopted the anti-Manning rhetoric from the further right-wing precincts and repudiated the liberal tradition of defending whistleblowers and opposing oppressive detention conditions - all in order to insist that Manning was being treated exactly how he should be (this warped reaction was far from unanimous, as many progressives protested Manning's treatment).

Since then, an internal investigation by the Marine Corps - which operates the brig in which he was held - found that Manning's jailers violated their own policies in imposing oppressive conditions. The Obama administration's own State Department spokesman, PJ Crowley, denounced the detention conditions as "ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid" and was then fired as a result. Amnesty International called for protests over Manning's treatment. The UN's highest torture official formally concluded after an investigation that the US government was guilty "of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment towards Bradley Manning" and "that the US military was at least culpable of cruel and inhumane treatment in keeping Manning locked up alone for 23 hours a day over an 11-month period in conditions that he also found might have constituted torture" - exactly what I reported at the end of 2010.

Read More: Military Judge Recognizes What Many Progressives Denied: Bradley Manning Was Mistreated

This year's full list of high-paid public officials across the board has not so far been published. However, information supplied by by The Treasury under the Freedom of Information Act shows that Mr Alexander has been asked to approve 210 "renumeration packages."

The Treasury statement added: "The list includes 67 posts that were expected to be created as a result of NHS restructuring. In relation to these roles, consideration was given to the skills and renumeration of existing NHS employees, ensuring that salaries were approved within an equivalent range.

"Ten further posts were approved in the four temporary Strategic Health Authority Clusters, which are due to be replaced by April 2013."

Rachel Reeves, the shadow Treasury chief secretary, said: "It is staggering that at a time when nearly 4,000 nursing posts are being cut and waiting times are going up that the government is forking out on dozens of salaries higher than the Prime Ministers as a result of their top-down reorganisation of the NHS.

"No one voted for these changes to the NHS, and it is shocking to learn that they are costing taxpayers millions of pounds in these salaries alone."

Last year's list of high-paid officials, published in August 2011 by the Cabinet Office, showed that 291 officials took home pay more than £150,000.

Mr Maude said at the time: "These kind of deals are relics of the past. It is absurd to expect that people can be paid the same amount in the public sector as they are paid in the private sector. People come in to jobs at senior levels in the public sector because they have an opportunity to make a big difference in the public sector, where they can work on a huge canvas.

"These [pay deals] are a feature of the past and not the future. They were made when money was thought to grown on trees."

The NHS shake-up has dogged the coalition ever since Mr Lansley announced it to widespread surprise - with opposition coming from the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of General Practitioners.

Labour also opposed the reforms - while Liberal Democrats refused fully endorse them in a key conference vote last year, dealing a blow to Nick Clegg.

The main thrust of the changes, which experts claim are the biggest shake-up of the NHS since it was founded, is to hand the power to commission services to GPs and to streamline NHS bureaucracy in England.

The NHS Commissioning Board will be directly responsible for some £30 billion of spending a year, and will also oversee local clinical commissioning groups (CCGs),which are responsible for much of the remaining £60billion expenditure.

After a stormy parliamentary passage, the Health and Social Care Act became law earlier this year. Many Tory MPs believed Mr Lansley, who is now Commons Leader, was replaced in the reshuffle because he had not done an effective enough job "selling" his reforms.

The Treasury statement said: "It is important to note that the Chief Secretary is normally only asked to approve a salary range prior to advertisement. The Treasury does not keep a record of the final appointments made, or final salaries - and it is therefore possible that not all of the posts in the list have been filled.

"For example, while the Chief Secretary was originally asked to approve the salary range for 50 local area team directors at the new NHS Commissioning Board, the Board has now decided that there will only be 25 team directors."