Keeler: 'Stupid'? Try 'un-American'

If you're going to lose your job for being a tad too blunt with reporters, you might as well not hold back at all.

Last week, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley made a comment very unlike the bland, self-censored bureaucratese that normally comes from the mouths of that department's representatives. Over the weekend, the news broke that Crowley is now a former State Department representative.

And what naughty words caused Crowley to hand in his resignation? Are you sitting down? "Ridiculous," "counterproductive" and "stupid."

Too bad he stopped there. He could easily, and truthfully, have added: immoral, outrageous, cruel and un-American.

Crowley was talking about the military's treatment of Pfc. Bradley Manning, the soldier suspected of being the source of a major dump of classified documents by WikiLeaks. In a brig in Virginia, Manning is in solitary confinement, and he has been forced to strip naked at night, allegedly as part of a suicide watch. Crowley, visiting the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to discuss social media and the unrest in the Middle East, was asked what he thought about WikiLeaks and about "torturing a prisoner in a military brig."

At moments like that, the normal State Department response would have been a few words mumbled in a language close to English, but devoid of meaning.

But for some reason, Crowley said what he really thought. Perhaps it was his military service. Maybe it was the radicalizing influence of spending a day in the People's Republic of Cambridge, as the locals call it. Or perhaps he was just having a Jeremiah moment. Lamenting the deep unpopularity that is a prophet's fate, Jeremiah promised he'd speak God's truth no more. "But then it becomes like fire burning in my heart, imprisoned in my bones," he griped. "I grow weary holding it in, I cannot endure it."

Whatever moved him to speak the truth, Crowley was right about Bradley Manning, and now he's gone.

It's reasonable to debate the level of damage that the leaks did to national security. (My view, as a former Army officer responsible for classified documents: very little.) But it's not at all reasonable to treat Manning as if he were, say, an inmate at Abu Ghraib, the prison in Iraq that became a huge scandal in 2004. In fact, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), not one to mince words, asked: "Is this Quantico or Abu Ghraib?" He added that stripping Manning "would be considered a violation of the Army Field Manual if used in an interrogation overseas."

The charges against Manning are heavy. Earlier this month, the Army added 22 more counts. The most serious was "aiding the enemy," under Article 104 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. That's a capital offense, though prosecutors say they won't press for the death penalty.

Despite the vastness of the accusations, Manning has been convicted of nothing. Legally, he enjoys the presumption of innocence. You know, one of those rights our soldiers are supposed to fight to protect. But he's being treated like a hardened, convicted criminal.

In a March 10 memorandum, Manning continued to protest his solitary confinement, harassment by guards, and designation as a suicide risk. In fact, none of that outrageous excess seems likely to instill in Manning an increased will to live.

In his newly unemployed state, Crowley deserves our thanks for telling the truth. But President Barack Obama needs to rethink his acceptance of the Pentagon's assurance that Manning's treatment is appropriate. Sorry, but it's not. Here's what it is: ridiculous, counterproductive, stupid and un-American.