profkeck's Open Salon Blog

What if Sandra Fluke were a Woman of Color?

Thu, 15 Mar 2012 21:03:40 -0400

In the wake of the Sandra Fluke vs. Rush Limbaugh media frenzy, we’ve begun to ask some very interesting questions. On Aljazeera’s Listening Post, for instance, one viewer noted that while pressuring advertisers to disassociate themselves from Limbaugh was a smart move by Fluke’s supporters, we have to ask if activism through advertising is the best strategy. What about corporate protests? Ad power could be used because a company dislikes commentary about corporate greed. Such queries popping up over the Fluke-Limbaugh controversy have brought a question to my mind: What if Sandra Fluke were a woman of color?

If Fluke were a woman of color would she have been asked to speak in the first place?

Certainly women of color have a sizeable stake in the contraception debate. As writers Arons and Panzy noted recently, “women of color experience much higher unintended pregnancy rates than their white counterparts: Black women are three times as likely as white women to experience an unintended pregnancy; Latinas are twice as likely. This new regulation guaranteeing access to no-cost contraception will give women of color a much-needed chance to close these gaps.” Obviously, Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke is better equipped to discuss female contraception than, say, a panel of men who can’t get pregnant. But what if she weren’t white and couldn’t afford post-secondary education?

While we don’t know for certain why her voice was chosen as the alternative to the all-male panel, a report in Time claims she was picked because of the way she spoke at the National Press Club, a professional organization where membership can cost between $200 and $900. Membership is also based on the applicant’s "professional status." My guess is few of the low-income minorities most in need of reproductive healthcare would be found via a search through National Press Club video clips. This is not because they can’t speak as eloquently as Sandra Fluke but because they’ve been denied access to the privilege that comes from being able to afford membership fees and gain experience in the professional realm.

If Fluke were a woman of color, would Rush Limbaugh have reacted in the same way?

It’s likely that Limbaugh would have been even nastier if Fluke weren’t who she is. As Jonathan Zimmerman noted in The Christian Science Monitor recently, Limbaugh's statement banked on a well established double standard: "female promiscuity was always worse than the male kind." So, Limbaugh was on safe ground with his male listeners who find it appalling that any woman would have sex and lots of it.

It's arguable that Limbaugh would be in even friendlier territory by observing that a nonwhite female was choosing to have as much sex as she wanted due to a lower risk of pregnancy. For ages, nonwhite women have been stereotyped as highly sexualized, so it wouldn’t be too challenging for the radio host to convince his audience that Fluke was a slut if she were black. In that case, Limbaugh could have persuaded listeners using the all-too-familiar caricature of the promiscuous Jezebel.

On the other hand, Limbaugh’s been troubled by accusations of racism in the past. His “get the bone out of your nose and call me back” response to a woman who phoned in to his show has drawn some heat. His comment that the “NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons” wasn’t popular with many people either. He even called President Obama "The Magic Negro." Perhaps if Fluke were an African American, attacking her would have been off limits because Limbaugh wouldn’t have wanted to add another quote to the already lengthy list. However, given his track record and continued popularity, it doesn’t seem like he’s too worried about censoring his racist statements.

If Fluke were a woman of color, would the GOP candidates have responded any differently to Limbaugh's remarks?

It's worth noting that none of the GOP contenders defended Fluke or her healthcare rights. They didn't say that women shouldn't be labeled "sluts" for having sex or that women who want insurance coverage for reproductive health care aren't "prostitutes." They didn't point out that married women also use birth control. Instead, here's how they reacted:

All Mitt Romney would say is,"It's not the language I would have used." So, can we assume that if Limbaugh had said Fluke was "regularly sexually active" instead of a "slut" that Romney would have agreed with his analysis? Romney's safe response allowed him to sidestep any support for or opposition to Limbaugh. If Fluke were Native or African American, Romney probably still would have played it safe to avoid reminding voters of his Mormon roots. Romney's been asked to renounce Mormonism by the co-chair of Santorum's campaign on the basis that his religion has a history of racism. So far in this primary race, it seems that his religion is not a subject Romney wants his constituents to worry about or remember.

Rick Santorum's reply to Limbaugh implied that his statements were what we've come to expect because "you know, an entertainer can be absurd." Of course, when it's Bill Maher, Santorum has higher expectations. Again we see a Republican carefully evade criticism of the right's favorite radio host.

Because Santorum previously caught heat for alluding to the author of The Bell Curve -- a text which claims black people are genetically inferior to white people -- in the current contraception debate, he would have been smart to avoid criticizing Limbaugh if Fluke's skin were another color.

Another candidate who wouldn't gain from denouncing Limbaugh is Newt Gingrich. While Speaker of the House, he made Limbaugh an honorary member of Congress. Going against his old pal no matter who was attacked wouldn't lend Gingrich the air of consistency constituents like to see in a presidential candidate. So, in response to questions about Limbaugh's comments, Gingrich relied on what's become his favorite tactic: changing the subject by berating the "elite media." Like his response to questions about his desire for an "open marriage" during the debates, he indicated that the media should have better topics to report on like "the trillion dollar deficit" and "rising gas prices."

I wonder if Gingrich would have left the change-the-subject technique behind if Fluke weren't a white woman. Instead, he may have shrugged his shoulders and said Fluke's desire for handouts is what typically comes of having a Foodstamp President.

Ron Paul's perspective was that Limbaugh used "very crude language," and he noted that "it's in [Limbaugh's] best interest" to lambast Fluke in such volatile terms because that's why he remains a popular radio personality. On the other hand, Paul thought that's why Limbaugh apologized, not out of sincere regret but because "it was the bottom line he was concerned about."

Like Romney, Paul's response focused on Limbaugh's language rather than the subject of his statements. If Fluke's race were different, Paul might have been less eager to disparage Limbaugh's apology since he's been haunted by the opinions forwarded in newsletters he published in the 1990s, which reveal opinions of African Americans that are not too far off from Gringrich's.

With our current economic climate in mind, the GOP candidates could have noted how advantageous it is for businesses to insure women in need of birth control pills. Unfortunately, they all missed an opportunity to defend Fluke and showcase their financial savvy.

If Fluke were a woman of color, would the backlash against Limbaugh’s statements have been as severe?

Most reasonable people would have seen Limbaugh’s attacks as ridiculous, idiotic, and insulting to all women and wouldn’t be afraid to say so. But Fluke’s supporters did more than just speak out about language that, from this radio personality, isn’t all that surprising. They were able to pressure institutions like AOL and Allstate to pull advertising from a popular show – a show they’d been happy to use to promote their ads despite previous inflammatory statements from its host.

Where were all the angry voices when Shirley Sherrod was wrongly accused of racism and Rush Limbaugh celebrated the late Andrew Breitbart's misleading video? Sherrod was not subjected to name-calling. Instead, she was forced to resign from the USDA and was condemned by the NAACP. It didn't take long to discover that the accusations of racism were a lie, but Sherrod was not reinstated nor did Limbaugh offer an apology, though she eventually got one from President Obama.

In a recent op-ed, Fluke described some of her supporters as "young women of all income levels, races, classes, and ethnicities who need access to contraception to control their reproduction, pursue their education and career goals, and prevent unintended pregnancy. And they will not be silenced." While Fluke's message is inspirational and her continued activism on the issue of access to contraception is commendable, Americans have yet to face a hard truth. There are those in the U.S. who are silenced because of their ethnicity, race, and socioeconomic status and are offered a limited level of support even though their plight is often more severe.

A study published in Contraception in September 2011 found that women who experienced racial discrimination were less likely to use effective means of contraception; however, once financial and structural barriers were removed, their use of contraception that assured better protection from pregnancy increased. In light of this study, it seems that those who face the most discrimination are at a higher risk of losing access to quality reproductive healthcare; therefore, they have a need of increased defense. If Fluke had been a woman likely to experience racial discrimination, would she have recieved the same support? I hope so.

When an all-male panel gathered to discuss the Blunt Amendment, the controversy was over the fact that men were asked to speak on behalf of women. What seems to be at the heart of the question I began with is that those who have the most to lose from our politicians’ poor judgments often are not the representatives heard by our Congress. To truly care for our nation’s people, shouldn’t our government begin by hearing from those who are most in need of help?

Who do you think should have access?

References

Kossler, Karla et al. (2011). "Percieved Racial, Socioeconomic, and Gender Discrimination and its Impact on Contraceptive Choice." Contraception. 84. 273-279.

Women Lead Defense of Maldivian Democracy (Updated)

Sat, 10 Mar 2012 11:03:27 -0500

Recent upheaval on the subject of birth control in the United States serves as a reminder of the way religion can be used as a tool to infringe on the rights of women. While this return to battles already won may be unwelcome, females in the U.S. can rest assured that they can protest and vote against officials who don’t recognize their rights to family planning. Though Christians still hold great power over our government, we can take comfort in the fact that a judge will not sentence us to punishments advocated in the Bible such as stoning for adultery. With International Women’s Day so prevalent in our minds, we should feel encouraged by brave women across the globe who lead the defense of both their human and democratic rights despite opposition stemming from relgious zealotry.

In response to a coup d’état against their first democractically elected president on February 7^th, thousands of women gathered in the capital of the Republic of the Maldives. They marched in support of early, free, and fair elections. Although their stalwart protests were met by arrests and water cannons, they are undeterred. The struggle to maintain democracy in the Maldives is ongoing, and the women of this island nation know what is at stake.

The persistent activism of Maldivian women has been recognized around the globe. On Thursday, Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama stood beside Aneesa Ahmed after presenting her with the International Woman of Courage Award. Ahmed was not the first to be recognized for efforts to advance women in the Maldives. Mariya Didi was honored by Condoleeza Rice in 2007 for similar accomplishments. She was taken into police custody shortly after the coup.

_{Mariya Didi arrested by the police.}

Despite the courageous acts of these women, inhumane practices like flogging are still used in the Maldives mainly as a punishment for females accused of adultery. This Indian Ocean nation may have achieved democracy in 2008, but its constitution rests on an Islamic foundation, which is advantageous to many who wish to assert their fundamentalist beliefs.

A rising tide of extremism has threatened to crash over the Maldives for some time. In early December, the Adhaalath party (a religiously-based political organization) fumed at the current government’s failure to arrest protesters advocating for freedom of religion. One of the protesters was blogger Ismail Rasheed who sustained a skull fracture when attacked during the gathering. Later that month, the parliament pushed a resolution to ban Israel’s El Al airline, which offers travel to and from the islands. On February 7^th, hard-line Islamists raided the National Museum destroying Buddhist and Hindu relics and statues. This fanaticism isn't only seen in street protests, but the use of violence in the name of Islam has seeped into the country's political system.

When United Nations High Commissioner of Human Rights Navi Pillay expressed the opinion that flogging women found guilty of adultery should be abolished, extremist Muslims protested outside the UN building in the Maldives. Their signs stated, “Flog Pillay” and “Islam is not a toy.” At the same time, a Domestic Violence Bill that would allow victims of violence to gain emergency protection and would ease a woman’s ability to divorce has been stalled in the nation’s parliament for over a year. Under the guise of Islamic law, the bill has been criticized for going against God’s wishes. While most inhabitants of the Maldives peacefully practice their religion, a few fanatics could spoil the nascent democracy, especially when it comes to women's rights.

Though the strides of Maldivian women have been many, the continued flogging, the rise in female genital mutilation, and the unwillingness to pass the Domestic Violence Bill are examples of just how formidable a task it is to achieve equality even within a democracy. Imagine if these women lost their opportunity to vote or if elections were not held again. Though the thirty-year dictatorial rule of Maumoon Abdul Gayoom seemingly ended with the elections of 2008, many who held positions in Gayoom's government have returned to power since the ousting of President Nasheed. It is under this cloud of authoritarianism that these women have gathered over the past few weeks.

Eva Abdulla, one of the few female members elected to the Maldives parliament, wrote to me explaining that since former dictator Gayoom experienced international pressure, the public, including women, have become more involved in politics. She adds, “As women make over 50% of the population here as anywhere else, they deserve an equal say in the running of their government. Women need to be heard in both policy formulation and implementation.”

With pride, Abdulla described the female response to the recent changes in government:

“One of the most overwhelming things after the coup has been the rise in number of women who are actively out protesting against the coup and in support of President Nasheed. While so many women were brutalized on February 7th and 8th by the armed forces, I think we can now safely say it is more women who are at the forefront of protesting against the coup.”

Abdulla went on to explain that “the women's rally [on February 24] in support of president Nasheed [was] one of the largest gatherings in Maldivian history and definitely the largest women's gathering here ever.”

The dramatic role of women in the protests for early elections reflects the urgent desire for democracy on the part of the 50% to which Parliamentarian Abdulla refers. They are conscious of the connection between their right to vote and recognition of their equality, yet the possible return of dictatorial rule is not the only problem they are facing.

Maldivian women are also up against orthodox Islamists who evoke the Quran to support their strict sexism. When interviewed in June 2010 Abdulla stated, “Religion is all too often used as an excuse to limit women.” That same year, a UN study reported “Religion was noted by all stakeholders being strongly influential in determining the role, position and status of women in society” and “respondents suggested that a shift towards a more conservative interpretation of Islam is resulting in women’s role in the public domain becoming increasingly difficult.”

Along with Abdulla, other women who play a role in the government have leveled criticism at the male-dominated system. Aishath Velezinee, the sole female member of the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), wrote on her blog, “I am subject to continued harassment and bullying, belittlement, and ridicule by the ‘Men of Good Standing’ who decide what is said, what is heard, what is told (to the media, judges, and public), and what goes on record in the JSC.” She goes on to complain that she is not taken seriously because she is “a ‘woman of no status.’”

While women of the island republic work for recognition of their political and human rights, they are challenged by Islamic radicalism in the new government established through violence. The extreme response to UN representative Pillay’s statement against flogging was not the first protest as some staunch Muslims have also rallied against serving alcohol at spas and resorts on atolls popular with tourists.

While he was president, Mohamed Nasheed aired concerns about the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and its impact on women saying, “We can’t achieve development by going backwards to the stone age or being ignorant.” He asked, “Should we ban music? Should we mutilate girls’ genitals? Should we allow nine year-olds to be married? Should we forbid art and drawing? Should we be allowed to take concubines? Is this nation building?’’

In their fledgling democracy, citizens of the Maldives face the challenge of balancing religion with human liberty. Now the representative government they so recently achieved is threatened. Since being sworn-in as president, Mohammed Waheed Hassan has restored many from the previous authoritarian regime to their previously held posts. He has even appointed two of Gayoom’s children to key positions in his new government.

Unlike U.S. officials who have recognized Waheed Hassan as the new president of the Maldives, Eva Abdulla calls his presidency illegitimate and remarked on her role in protesting his attempt to deliver his first inaugural address to parliament on March first:

“We, MDP (Maldivian Democratic Party) MPs (Members of Parliament) blocked the illegitimate leader Waheed from addressing parliament. 0ver 20,000 of President Nasheed's supporters protested peacefully outside parliament. Once again, most were women, and only women were at the frontline.”

_{Eva Abdulla is in the center wearing yellow, the color of her political party.}

Fear of a return to dictatorship is what fuels the protestors despite the brutal response to their activism. As recently as March 8^th, Amnesty International reported that at least six people were injured when met with police during a peaceful protest. On February 29^th, twenty women were pepper sprayed and beaten as they rallied against President Waheed.

As a result of this new regime bent on resurrecting a dictatorship, the voices of all Maldivians could be silenced, and the courageous women of this nation could find themselves thrust back in time. As the Indian Ocean islanders strive to maintain their human rights and continue to seek an end to inhumane practices, their endeavors call to mind what could happen if American women fail to heed warning signs like the defunding of Planned Parenthood or the recently passed invasive ultrasound bill. The power of the people lies in our ability to protest, and those of us in long-established democracies facing religiously-based politics can draw inspiration from the Maldivians’ courageous efforts.

_____________________ Updates _____________________

(3/10) Watch this short documentary on the women's democracy movement in the Maldives.

(3/19) Find this article on The Huffington Post.

An Arab Spring Without Support (Updated)

Tue, 14 Feb 2012 20:02:14 -0500

Many believe the “Arab Spring” first blossomed with Tunisia’s 2011 elections; however, a Muslim country protested its way to democracy three years before. In the Republic of the Maldives in October of 2008, the people of a beautiful island nation toppled an authoritarian regime by holding their first multi-party election. From it, a leader who had been tortured and imprisoned under the rule of the previous dictator emerged: Mohamed Nasheed.

After his election, President Nasheed, known as Anni by his people, chose to move forward rather than seek revenge on the former leader, Maumoon Abdul Gayoom. Many of us would not have been so willing to give up old grudges. Along with long terms of solitary confinement, Nasheed missed the birth of his two daughters because of his imprisonment under Gayoom’s government. While Nasheed hoped to leave the past behind him, followers of the defeated incumbent were not of the same mind.

On February 7^th, Nasheed’s life and the lives of others were threatened unless the president resigned, and so he did, stating, “I believe that if the government were to remain in power it would require the use of force, which would harm many citizens.” He later explained, “There were guns all around me, and they told me they wouldn't hesitate to use them if I didn't resign."

As a result of the new shift in power, the United States’ assistant secretary of state Robert O. Blake visited Male, the capital of the Maldives. After meeting with former Vice President Mohammed Waheed Hassan, Blake encouraged Nasheed to take part in the new coalition government. The ousted president refused. Despite his explanation that he was forcibly removed from office, the U.S. has agreed to “work with the government of the Maldives, but believe that the circumstances surrounding the transfer of power need to be clarified.”

Will the U.S. get the clarification they need? Evidence is mounting in support of the former president’s allegations that he was ousted in a coup. In a video taken on January 30th Nasheed's opposition calls on the military and police to turn against the first democratically elected president. Umar Naseer, a Gayoom loyalist, admitted to the coup on February 11. There are also reports of others such as Gayoom’s half-brother, Abdulla Yameen, offering compensation to police who oppose Nasheed. On February 15, President Waheed's brother resigned from his post as the Deputy High Commissioner of the Maldives to the UK saying, "I cannot serve a regime that has brought down the democratically elected government in a coup d’état."

What is equally suspicious is that on the same day of Nasheed’s overthrow, the Maldives National Broadcasting Commission (a national television station) was violently overrun. Adam Shareef, the MNBC Managing Director shared his experience saying, “I was hiding inside the light room until the security forces assured me I would be given protection. When I came out Dr. Waheed’s brother Ali Waheed was there. He shook my hands and said that he was there to take over MNBC on behalf of Vice President Dr. Waheed. This was before Nasheed resigned.”

With more information regarding the transfer of power coming out every day, it seems that the U.S. will discover that President Nasheed was forced to leave office. The question remains: how will our government react to the truth of this coup d’état?

In response to other Arab Springs, America has been supportive. While Mubarak was still in power, President Obama said, "the people of Egypt have the right to determine their own destiny. These are human rights, and the United States will stand up for them everywhere." Concerning Syria, Obama expressed recently that he hoped to "create the kind of international pressure and environment that encourages the current Syrian regime to step aside so that a more democratic process of transition can take place." Obama celebrated Libya's revolution saying, "Libya is a lesson in what the international community can achieve when we stand together as one."

Since his deposition, Mohamed Nasheed has requested that the new president step down and the country be allowed to hold early elections. In response, Robert Blake has said that the Maldivians are not ready for a free and fair election process.

If the U.S. is faced with evidence that the president of the Republic of the Maldives was unlawfully removed, they should recognize the human rights of those who live on the islands of the Indian Ocean, and their desire for democracy should not go without support.

____________________ Updates ______________________

Correction (edited on 2/15): Former Vice President Waheed does not appear in the video of Gayoom loyalists encouraging mutiny against Nasheed.

For more information: An excellent piece on the role of the Maldives internationally and the possible impact of democracy loss to the region by Vishal Arora in World Politics Review.

(2/16) A glimmer of hope for Maldives democracy. Early elections may yet be held!

Find an updated version of this essay on The Huffington Post.

View photos from the latest protests for democracy in the Maldives.

Maldives in Critical Condition

Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:02:32 -0500

When seeking solutions to a problem, it is common sense to start where the problem is at its most severe. In other words, the patient in cardiac arrest gets treated before the one who has lost a limb. That’s why Mitt Romney’s recent statement expressing a lack of concern for the poor is disturbing to many of us. While there is no doubt that the middle class needs help, the suffering of the impoverished is the deepest section of America’s wound, and Romney’s answer (relying on safety nets) will not stop the bleeding.

Inadequate solutions from our politicians aren’t surprising, and there are many issues besides poverty that aren’t immune to the typical ineffectual treatment. One example is of our failure to make significant changes to our environmental policies. As one of the most notorious emitters of greenhouse gases, the U.S. has continuously avoided ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. Instead, we offered up the Copenhagen Accord, which includes no targets for reduced emissions and will not hold any nation accountable for their actions on climate change.

We also offer loopholes to natural gas corporations that use hydrofracking, a process that poisons the very water we drink. The United States has both ignored the wound where it's deepest and injured ourselves further. Fortunately, there may be an opportunity to hit the right target.

The island nation of Maldives in the Indian Ocean, which Jon Bowermaster of National Geographic labels “Ground Zero for Climate Change Impacts,” is in critical condition. Their first democratically elected president, Mohamed Nasheed, was ousted in a coup d’état on Tuesday after being held at gunpoint and forced to resign. Unlike Romney, Nasheed is concerned about attacking the heart of his country’s most dire threat: rising sea levels due to global warming. He is proactive, finding locations for his people to live when the rising water overtakes their homeland. He famously held a cabinet meeting underwater to draw attention to the threats facing the Maldives islands and was named a United Nations Champion of the Earth. Nasheed’s administration hoped to achieve the status of the first carbon-neutral country not only for the safety of its people, but also to set an example for nations like ours, which has dragged its feet on climate change issues.

The United States should not validate the new regime (also known as the old regime that held power until the first democratic elections) not only because they have undermined the people's own hard-won democratic principles in this violent overthrow, but also because their former leader was offering real solutions to the nation’s struggle against its own extinction. Recognizing Nasheed as the true president of this collection of islands is a chance for the U.S. to do something different: directly deal with a problem rather than offer solutions that only deal with the symptoms.

Thus far, there is little hope that this will be the case. Victoria Nuland, U.S. State Department Spokesperson, expressed the belief that the regime change “was handled constitutionally.” While Assistant Secretary of State Bob Blake will be stopping by the nation’s capital city this weekend, I have low expectations due to America's propensity for half-measures. Hopefully, our response to this attack on democracy in the Maldives won’t be business as usual. With a warrant out for Nasheed’s arrest and those loyal to their democratically elected president taking to the streets in protest, it seems that urgent and direct action will be necessary to stem the tide. As the results of Blake’s trip and the actions on the part of the U.S. unfold, we’ll find out if America is finally ready to cut to the heart of the matter.

If you'd like to put your support behind democracy and curbing climate change, sign a petition to help Mohamed Nasheed via 350.org.

An Open Letter about Pfc. Bradley Manning (Updated)

Sun, 5 Feb 2012 14:02:41 -0500

General Raymond T. Odierno
Chief of Staff of the US Army
101 Army Pentagon, Rm. 3E672
Washington DC 20310-0200

February 5, 2012

Dear General Raymond Odierno,

I would like to share my appreciation for your service to the United States. Without honorable and courageous individuals like yourself and those who serve with you, our nation would be left defenseless and unable to aid those in need of disaster relief. The brave soldiers who serve in our armed forces voluntarily face physical and mental peril, and these deeds should not go unnoticed. I am writing to call your attention to a particular act of unflinching patriotism that I believe should be rewarded.

Pfc. Bradley Manning has shown true courage at great cost to himself. Like all soldiers, he chose to serve knowing that he may die in combat, but he went above and beyond this duty by choosing to do what was right rather than what would make him popular. If the allegations that he leaked information to Wikileaks are true, he fulfilled his oath to protect and serve the citizens of the United States. Therefore, his actions should be celebrated just as we would recognize the deeds of any courageous service member.

There can be no doubt that the release of the “Collateral Murder” video, “Afghan War Diaries,” and Diplomatic Cables have provided evidence of wrongdoing. As I am sure you agree, criminals should be punished, and any incidence of unlawful behavior, even among members of the military, should be taken very seriously. Because of the United States’ involvement in foreign affairs, it is imperative that other nations view our representative organizations as law abiding. If servicemen and women are not held to a lawful standard and are not punished for their crimes, the high esteem in which we are held abroad will diminish.

The information released by Wikileaks and allegedly by Manning has provided the armed forces with an opportunity to prove that we are not a state of warmongers and that our soldiers are imbued with integrity and honor. If we are truly a nation built on a foundation of justice, our military should reflect this conviction, which is why I hope you will show appreciation for Pfc. Bradley Manning’s heroism by supporting his release and advocating that the charges against him be dropped. Failure to release Manning and to try those involved in criminal activity sends a message that we do not uphold the values we claim to share with our allies, and it fuels our enemies who seek to prove that we are hypocrites.

Patriots like you must certainly see how actions that infringe on the inalienable rights of citizens like Bradley Manning and that oppose our nation’s foundation of laws will weaken the United States. Therefore, I am certain you will choose to uphold our principles and values by supporting the patriotism of Bradley Manning. Thank you again for your continued service.

Respectfully,

Mary Keck

_____________________Updates________________________

Find this letter on the Huffington Post.