Bradley Manning: the face of heroism

[Luminous Animal]

The 25-year-old Army Private, this generation's Daniel Ellsberg, pleads guilty today to some charges and explains his actions

Manning explained that he was leaking because he wanted the world to know what he had learned: "I want people to see the truth … regardless of who they are … because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public." When asked by the informant why he did not sell the documents to a foreign government for profit - something he obviously could have done with ease - Manning replied that he wanted the information to be publicly known in order to trigger "worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms". He described how he became deeply disillusioned with the Iraq War he had once thought noble, and this caused him to re-examine all of his prior assumptions about the US government. And he extensively narrated how he had learned of serious abuse and illegality while serving in the war - including detaining Iraqi citizens guilty of nothing other than criticizing the Malaki government - but was ignored when he brought those abuses to his superiors.

Manning is absolutely right when he said today that the documents he leaked "are some of the most significant documents of our time". They revealed a multitude of previously secret crimes and acts of deceit and corruption by the world's most powerful factions. Journalists and even some government officials have repeatedly concluded that any actual national security harm from his leaks is minimal if it exists at all. To this day, the documents Manning just admitted having leaked play a prominent role in the ability of journalists around the world to inform their readers about vital events. The leaks led to all sorts of journalism awards for WikiLeaks. Without question, Manning's leaks produced more significant international news scoops in 2010 than those of every media outlet on the planet combined.

This was all achieved because a then-22-year-old Army Private knowingly risked his liberty in order to inform the world about what he learned. He endured treatment which the top UN torture investigator deemed "cruel and inhuman", and he now faces decades in prison if not life. He knew exactly what he was risking, what he was likely subjecting himself to. But he made the choice to do it anyway because of the good he believed he could achieve, because of the evil that he believed needed urgently to be exposed and combated, and because of his conviction that only leaks enable the public to learn the truth about the bad acts their governments are doing in secret.

Heroism is a slippery and ambiguous concept. But whatever it means, it is embodied by Bradley Manning and the acts which he unflinchingly acknowledged today he chose to undertake. The combination of extreme government secrecy, a supine media (see the prior two columns), and a disgracefully subservient judiciary means that the only way we really learn about what our government does is when the Daniel Ellsbergs - and Bradley Mannings - of the world risk their own personal interest and liberty to alert us. Daniel Ellberg is now widely viewed as heroic and noble, and Bradley Manning (as Ellsberg himself has repeatedly said) merits that praise and gratitude every bit as much.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/28/bradley-manning-heroism-pleads-guilty?CMP=twt_gu

[Luminous Animal]

1. Some of Manning's testimony...

12:55 PM: Bradley finished reading his entire statement, a nearly two-hour defense of whistleblowing, transparency, and the refusal to be complicit in that which you cannot abide. “I believed and still believe these are some of most important documents of our time,” he said of the war logs he passed to WikiLeaks. Bradley affirmed his belief that the documents he released needed to be in the public realm (specifically the American public), that he “only wanted docs I was absolutely sure wouldn’t cause harm to the United States,” and that he’d hoped the release would result in domestic debate and a reevaluation of the United States’ war on terror.

He “became depressed with the situation we were mired in” in Iraq. In counterterrorism operations, he said, the U.S. became ‘obsessed with capturing and killing people.’

Bradley discussed his horror at the ‘Collateral Murder’ video of US Apache soldiers gunning down Reuters journalists and those who came to rescue the injured. He said the U.S. gunner who wanted to shoot the wounded in Collateral Murder video “seemed similar to a child torturing ants w/ a magnifying glass.” He was also aghast at the way that David Finkel had characterized the killings in his book, The Good Soldiers. When he learned that Reuters had attempted to acquire the video and was stonewalled by the U.S., Bradley said he’d wanted to try to get the video to Reuters so they’d be able to view the incident and the U.S. rules of engagement so their journalists could better avoid this from happening again.

He also revealed that while he was on a mid-tour leave in the U.S., he’d wanted to give documents to the Washington Post, but that the reporter or editor he talked to didn’t seem interested, especially without more information. He then called the New York Times’ public editor and left a message leaving his phone number – no one called him back. He’d wanted to try to talk to Politico about sharing documents with them, but he was stranded in Maryland when a blizzard hit. He then turned to WikiLeaks.

He said he had many conversations in anonymous, secure chat rooms with someone who called him/herself ‘Nathaniel,’ whom Bradley believed to be someone who worked for WikiLeaks, namely Julian Assange or Daniel Domscheit-Berg. He said that he would occasionally propose certain documents to ‘Nathaniel,’ but that “no one from [WikiLeaks] pressured” him to give more information.

The “decisions to send were my own,” he said, “and I take full responsibility.”

http://www.bradleymanning.org/news/live-blog-updates-from-ft-meade-where-bradley-manning-to-explain-guilty-plea-and-wikileaks-releases

[Scuba]

2. Now three years in custody ...

[pacalo]

4. +1.

[Useless in FL]

6. +2

[sabrina 1]

13. Telling the truth in the US is a very dangerous thing to do.

But is the right thing to do and history will not be kind to the leaders of this shameful era in our history. Looking at South America gives me hope that while justice might not be done anytime soon, it WILL happen. The truth has a way of surfacing, often too late for the courageous people who try to stand up for it, like Manning and Wikileaks, but history does seem to show that it does prevail sooner or later.

The sadness for us is that we thought electing Democrats would begin the process of holding the war criminals accountable. How wrong we were.

He is a hero and will always be viewed as such by honest people everywhere.

[woo me with science]

17. [phone]

Thank you.

[tblue]

39. I wish our potus

was a different kind of potus. I'm not really a praying person but if I was, I'd pray for Bradley every day.

[deutsey]

46. "Americans love non-conformity and often reward it with the metal of honor (sic).” Lenny Bruce

[lovuian]

3. this is not America's finest hour but its worst

the trial became null and void when they tortured him with solitary

[lovuian]

5. petraeus and allen two generals leaked info

but they get too enjoy retirement

[KoKo]

7. Exactly...but like the Black Panther Kept in Solitary for 40 Years...

His days are numbered. He is an "EXAMPLE" of not revealing TRUTH TO POWER.

This is under our Democratic President.

[mwrguy]

8. Obama should pardon him.

And order full restitution.

[Cleita]

9. Yes, he should, but I'm waiting for the lightening to strike I'm afraid. n/t

[Whats_that]

44. Be realistic...

Do you really think the Commander in Chief should support and condone distribution of materiel that his organization has deemed classified?

What kind of precedent does that set? Hey, as long as you think it's cool just dump whatever you like to whoever you like.

Agree with manning or not, he is a grown man who violated his oath and legal obligations and should pay the price.

[Cleita]

58. Be realistic.

The punishment has way exceeded the crime. It's time to show some humanity and common sense.

[Whats_that]

60. Hardly...

He deserves life in prison as an example and deterrent to others.

[Cleita]

63. A deterrent to keep others from exposing the war crimes that

are being committed? Sure, they will shut up and the abuses will keep coming. It worked really well for Hitler, Stalin and Pinnochet. Torture the opposition and no one else will oppose you and you can continue with your agenda with no one showing the world what's going on. Americans have a duty above all others to shine a light on those who aren't living up to our moral standards otherwise we are no better than any banana republic run by a dictator and a single party.

[randome]

10. So many weak points.

So Manning went to Wikileaks because he didn't like the idea that the Washington Post wanted more information?

So he spent a long time in custody -a lot of it due to the delaying motions of his attorneys?

So he was 'tortured' by being placed in solitary confinement after he made it abundantly clear that he was a suicide risk?

So he punched his superior officer because...?

I agree Manning should have his sentence reduced but all of you know the many holes that exist in the idea that he is some sort of 'hero'.

[msanthrope]

11. I suspect the defense will ask for another delay of trial after this round of hearings.

It's in their best interests. Manning is currently in med sec. He will go to max sec after trial, so every day he spends delaying, is a day he spends outside of max sec.

As for reducing his sentence, well, I think the prosecution is going to argue that his personal statement was perjurious. I think he's looking at decades in prison.

[Luminous Animal]

12. Huh?

So Manning went to Wikileaks because he didn't like the idea that the Washington Post wanted more information?

This is your only question that has anything to do with Manning releasing info. And where did you get the idea that the WP wanted more info so Manning walked away?

So he spent a long time in custody -a lot of it due to the delaying motions of his attorneys?

No, a lot of the delays were due to the military dragging their feet on fulfilling motions. For instance, the defense asked for a delay for mental health evaluation, which, as revealed through testimony, should have taken a few days... but the military took 3 months to find a therapist to fulfill the obligation.

So he was 'tortured' by being placed in solitary confinement after he made it abundantly clear that he was a suicide risk?

Testimony revealed that doctors did not consider him a suicide risk but officers ignored that advice. This is one of the reasons that the UN is investigating.

So he punched his superior officer because...?

Are you trying to advance the argument that heroes should be perfect? Indeed, he should not have done that but the incident has ZERO to do with Manning's personal convictions about releasing information.

I agree Manning should have his sentence reduced but all of you know the many holes that exist in the idea that he is some sort of 'hero'

Your holes are a mirage. .

[sabrina 1]

14. You're wasting your time, I hate to tell you.

The joke is that anyone would suggest that someone trying to tell the truth about Bush's War Crimes should go to the US considering how complicit they were in helping that criminal administration tell the lies that led this country to war. It's hysterically funny and deserves nothing more than a good laugh.

Wikileaks continues to be the most influential news organization of the past decade. Of course here in the US most people have no clue about what was revealed in those leaks. The very media the poster you responded to suggests that Manning have trusted, have made sure of that. But there is a big world outside the US and most of it DOES know what was contained in those leaks.

[Luminous Animal]

19. I was thrilled to see that he didn't "turn" on Wikileaks... he stuck with his ideals...

and has done so throughout this entire ordeal. His detractors love to label him as "troubled" (and thus damaged) due to his gender identity exploration and then, from their bigoted point of view, extend their bigotry to his overall character.

As you and Greenwald point out:

The leaks led to all sorts of journalism awards for WikiLeaks. Without question, Manning's leaks produced more significant international news scoops in 2010 than those of every media outlet on the planet combined.

[msanthrope]

22. Um...I think Mr. Manning has figured out that he was used by Mr. Assange--

Manning said his ensuing discussions with “Nathaniel,” often about the classified material, became friendly, enjoyable and long. “I could just be myself, free of any concerns about social labeling in real life,” Manning said, his voice catching at times.

“In retrospect, I realize these dynamics were artificial,” Manning continued. “They were valued more to me than Nathaniel.”

The online interactions seemed to make Manning’s relationship with WikiLeaks at once intimate, and remote. For all his long discussions with “Nathaniel,” Manning on Thursday mispronounced Julian Assange’s name as As-SAN-gee.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/02/bradley-manning/

I suppose when Wikileaks could only find 15k to give to Manning's defense fund, a light might have gone off.

[Luminous Animal]

28. As you have been told time and time again, the organization that manages Wikileaks' funds

refused to honor the bequest of $50,000. They exercised their fiduciary duty and nixed that amount and only allowed $15,000 to be released.

And, as a long time domestic abuse activist, I will state with the coldness that comes with that statement... an organization and people working within that organization cannot get caught up with any one persons personality. You can listen and empathize and sympathize but, in the long run, the people that come for help will rarely be a friend. And yes, the support that an organization provides should ALWAYS be more important to those who seek it than what the org gets in return.

[msanthrope]

31. The excuses for Assange are endless. Your second paragraph is a rather revealing analogy. nt

[sabrina 1]

50. Yes, that was a huge concern, and I'm sure part of the reason why he was

treated so badly. He is clearly a person of high moral standards, something they apparently cannot comprehend, so lying about Wikileaks was not an option for such a person despite the torture he was subjected to. Making him all the more a hero. It truly is shameful though to realize that this is how our government treats honest, principled soldiers like him. I am certain his treatment will effectively silence anyone else who might have been willing to take any action to stop the crimes.

The US media has ignored the fallout from the leaks and as a result most Americans have no idea what was even revealed. But yes, the rest of the world knows and we are such a small part of the world, despite the arrogant attitude we seem to have that the world is centered around us.

He IS a hero, and I believe history will be very kind to him while not so kind to those who are prosecuting him.

[msanthrope]

20. Let me know when Assange gets around to releasing the bank info....

Early next year, Julian Assange says, a major American bank will suddenly find itself turned inside out. Tens of thousands of its internal documents will be exposed on Wikileaks.org with no polite requests for executives’ response or other forewarnings. The data dump will lay bare the finance firm’s secrets on the Web for every customer, every competitor, every regulator to examine and pass judgment on.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2010/11/29/wikileaks-julian-assange-wants-to-spill-your-corporate-secrets/

That was 2010.

[Luminous Animal]

29. And as you have been told time and time and again

Daniel Domscheit-Berg (you know, the guy who "defected" from Wikileaks and was supposed to start his own leak org -OpenLeaks - which... hahahaha... never happened) stole that info and destroyed it.

Wikileaks cannot release any info that was stolen and destroyed.

[msanthrope]

34. No one made a backup? nt

[MH1]

55. Great plot for a novel. nt.

[sabrina 1]

42. Let us know when any charges are filed, okay? Three years, no charges, political

persecution is the conclusion of most people at this point. No charges, a prosecutor who has refused to take the one step that would have enabled her to issue charges, and one must conclude since she will not do so, she has no case.

[msanthrope]

68. I suspect charges will be filed as the Belmarsh court indicated they would:

shortly after Mr. Assange reaches Sweden.

[sabrina 1]

72. I suspect no charges will ever be filed nor were they ever intending to file them.

When their own attorney, the one who supports a man tax because every man is responsible for rape, just an aside, admitted himself that this case could never be won. I think most people have now concluded what many suspected from the beginning, all they wanted was to try to discredit the one news organization that stepped in to the void in journalism and report the truth. That CIA memo published by Wikileaks where they planned to do this, to 'get him caught in a sex scandal' told the whole story. So few were surprised when it happened.

I see he's running for office in Australia. He's extremely popular there and the puppet PM disgraced herself when she lied about Wikileaks and was forced to retract the statements she made, obviously read from a memo given to her by her handlers.

The more they play this game, the more popular and the more support Wikileaks has around the world. We are so insulated here, so ignorant of how we are viewed elsewhere and how little credibility we have. And those who do our dirty work for us, such as the Right Wing Gov of Sweden, friends of Karl Rove, have pretty much lost all of theirs also.

But hey, keep hoping, although why any Democrat would wish to see a news organization like Wikileaks which exposes war criminals, something we longed for during the Bush years, is a mystery to me, well sort of a mystery I suppose would be a better way of putting it.

[randome]

18. From your link.

"...he’d wanted to give documents to the Washington Post, but that the reporter or editor he talked to didn’t seem interested, especially without more information."

So he passed them by. Why didn't he want to have the documents vetted? It would have saved everyone a ton of time and money.

[Luminous Animal]

21. Um, that is from a live blogger who has asked to wait for her final report...

She was writing off the cuff and we have no idea what the more info might have encompassed. Perhaps it his name. Or the reporter being lazy (many are) and wanted Manning to do more investigative legwork. To deliver the info in a well organized format.

So, you are jumping to a conclusion based on scant info.

Why do you assume that he didn't want the documents vetted? That's a news orgs job.

[msanthrope]

23. Both papers have denied having contact with Manning. nt

[struggle4progress]

15. "Hilary Clinton, and several thousand diplomats around the world are going to have a heart attack

when they wake up one morning, and finds an entire repository of classified foreign policy is available, in searchable format to the public"
-- Bradley Manning to Adrian Lamo

That is not principled whistleblowing, motivated by some particular malfeasance, but instead represents a gleeful attempt, by an individual with access to classiified data, to damage the ability of the US to conduct its foreign policy

The notion, that communications between an embassy and its government are entitled to confidentiality, is not peculiar to the US: it is well-established by international law, as shown (for example) by general agreement that diplomatic pouches will cross borders unopened. Diplomats are understood to represent the interests and positions of their own governments: the purpose of diplomacy is not that countries shall expose their inner hearts to each other, but that (so far as possible) they will remain in communication with one another and attempt to find some concord to mutual advantage

That Manning believed he himself should, without any particularly compelling reason, tear away completely the veil surrounding US diplomatic communications -- a veil which every country in the world expects for its own active diplomats -- illustrates his naïveté and his delusion of grandeur

He is a troubled young man. One naturally hopes he gets the psychiatric help he obviously needs and that some mercy tempers the sentence he will receive

[Luminous Animal]

16. It is an accurate observation and has nothing to do with motive.

[msanthrope]

24. Actually, it has quite a bit to do with intent. Motive is great, but not a requirement. What that

statement proves is 'intent'--an element of the crimes charged.

[Luminous Animal]

32. Honestly, I'd like to keep this going and I have things to say...

but my lovely cat. 19 years old, just died in my lap.

[msanthrope]

35. I am very sorry. We can argue later, right now know that your cat died

peacefully, right where they wanted to. Be well.

[woo me with science]

36. Oh, no...

I am so, so sorry, Luminous Animal.

[cali]

40. Oh no. Clearly your cat had a lovely long life, but it is so hard

to lose a long time companion.

[sabrina 1]

43. I'm so sorry, Luminous Animal

[deutsey]

48. Damn. I'm sorry to hear that

I still miss my old Tabby pal who died peacefully about 8 years ago. He usually woke me up in the morning to feed him and then he'd lay beside me in my chair while I read or surfed the Internet. I knew something was wrong when he didn't get me up that morning.

[WillyT]

67. Aw Damn... Sorry Luminous...

Peace...

[struggle4progress]

25. I might indeed have been persuadable of that claim, had there been a small identifiable cluster

of malfeasance issues, that could made sense of the release as principled whistleblowing

But in fact, it is easy to see that there is no such cluster:

(1) The sheer number of cables -- over a quarter million -- indicates there is no such cluster;
(2) The fact that Manning said, prior to the release, that his release would provide a searchable database of diplomatic communications, rather than offering an identifiable cluster of exposes, also indicates there is no such cluster;
(3) The fact that the transfer to Wikileaks -- which portrays itself as an editing and publishing organization -- did not lead to any systematic exposes, but rather led to incoherent batch releases and a search utility, further indicates there is no such cluster;
(4) The fact that Manning, in his statement today, did not point out any small identifiable cluster of malfeasance issues, governing his selection of cables to release, again indicates there is no such cluster; and
(5) The fact that, to date, no has identified a small identifiable cluster of malfeasance issues, that could have motivated Manning, has emerged from the cables

Indeed, how could a quarter million cables, in some cases dating back to the 1960s, from US embassies around the globe, possibly represent an attempt to expose any particular malfeasance? Unfortunately for Manning, all evidence points in a different direction. The only credible interpretation is that Manning performed a massive random dump of diplomatic communications to Wikileaks; that he gave Wikileaks no useful pointers about what the dump contained; and that Wikileaks -- having no definite notion of how to tell a small number of coherent tales of malfeasance based on the cables -- was therefore constrained to offer the cables (i) to mainstream press, in order to mine them for whatever information they might contain and (ii) to the general public, with a search utility, in hopes that the general public might also mine them for whatever information they might contain

[msanthrope]

26. Manning admitted today that he didn't seek official channels--i.e. whistleblower status--

But Manning conceded that he did not “even look at the proper channels” on how the military chain of command could release the sensitive information.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/02/bradley-manning/

[struggle4progress]

27. Dumb kid.

[sabrina 1]

51. He reported abuses to his superiors and was ignored.

Manning said he often found himself frustrated by attempts to get his chain of command to investigate apparent abuses detailed in the documents Manning accessed.

As for going beyond his immediate superiors, that is another matter. There should have been no need for that anyhow, considering what he did report to those who were directly in charge.

Since they did not 'seek the proper channels' either, what have the consequences been for them? Shouldn't they have reported these abuses themselves and what does it say about them, that they did not?

That fact alone, that they not only ignored Manning's reports of torture and abuse which was under their control, but refused to report it and seek advice on how to stop it, proves that torture is a policy, not an aberration, and that a soldier who believed otherwise and tried to stop it, was an 'inconvenience' to the 'cause', whatever that was.

[Niceguy1]

41. he made the

Choice to bypass the established method of reporting such things.it works and is fair. He never even tried.

[Coyotl]

73. Why are you a Manning detractor?

[Whats_that]

45. This...

That is not principled whistleblowing, motivated by some particular malfeasance, but instead represents a gleeful attempt, by an individual with access to classiified data, to damage the ability of the US to conduct its foreign policy

He needs to face the consequences for his poor decisions.

[sabrina 1]

49. And you need to read some of the facts of this case. He reported torture something

the US claims 'we do not do'. He reported it to his superiors, he was ignored, innocent people, Iraqis who we were told we were there to 'free from a dictator' were being handed over by the US, THE US, to the wonderful Iraqi 'police', trained by US btw, and tortured for .... GUESS WHAT?? I'll let you tell me since you are apparently so informed about this case.

I am looking forward to you telling me why Manning should have kept his mouth shut and how reporting torture equals 'a gleeful attempt, by an individual with access to classified data, to damage the ability of the US to conduct its foreign policy'. Just how is trying to stop torture 'damaging the US'? Didn't we go to Iraq to 'shut down Saddam Hussein's torture chambers'???? Well, that's what Bush told us

Please inform us about the details of the events that prompted Manning to go to his superiors in the first place, then to the US media and finally to Wikileaks? Unless of course you do not know. Or worse, unless you agree with Bush's torture policies which I am sure you do not as you are here on a Democratic forum which totally opposed, as Manning does, Bush's war crimes of torture and lies.

[4Q2u2]

54. The SOFA

A new status of Forces agreement was put into effect 2008-2009. This was to hand Iraq over to the Iraqi people and their security forces, it was the Law of the Land that Iraqi people had to be handed over to Iraqi forces no matter what was going to happen. It was the intent of the SOFA to have the Iraqi people take more control over their country and develop their rebuilding plan. Everything from Rules of Engagement to Operational Control of Patrols shifted to Iraqi control. This is what the Iraqi people wanted, if we did not agree to it, they would ask for our formal withdrawal of the country.

You state that he went to his Superiors with all this info. Was that between his multiple breeches of the UCMJ and conduct outside Good Order and Disciple. So that he tainted his own message as an unreliable and churlish immature person. He was barely an E4 with zero combat experience but from his cushy little office he knew more what was really going on in Iraq than the whole of the U. S. Military and Government. Monday Morning Quarterbacking life and death situations that require split second decisions with 20/20 hindsight. Not knowing the first thing about what stresses those individuals were under, and what it takes mentally to survive that daily emotional crush so you can get home to your Loved Ones. That he deemed to indict his fellow Soldiers as sole Judge, Jury and Executioner is despicable and not even close to conduct of a Hero.

The info he also leaked may seem innocuous and innocent to the untrained eye, but to a military expert it is a gold mine in tactics and engagement. Say you saw in the Video or After Action Reports that the US Military veered left after shooting hellfire missiles. Now you can develop a new strategy that exploits this weakness and kill American Soldiers. That is aiding the enemy. What higher calling was he doing when he leaked the names of Afghanis that helped Americans out?

Perfection in everyday life is hard enough, but you expect it from Soldiers and Pilots in a Combat situations when the world around you is exploding in front of your face, hell on earth is right there close enough to smell and taste. That is beyond the pale of reality and you use this idea to convict en mass a whole segment of Americans to justify the actions of one person who committed a crime.
Even Manning's own story tells that he could not handle the stress, all this from his desk safely miles away from Combat.

You also act that Bush's lie was and is the fault of every single person who served in Iraq of Afghanistan. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact it is the fault of the American People that let a President violate and misuse a National Treasure; (American People Serving in the Military). As citizens you were obligated to protect our military from misuse. Not the other way around. So to hold Bushes War against Americans that served is quite disturbing. What happened to protest the War not the Troops.


Hero? Not by along shot.

[MH1]

56. Well said.

I like your screen name, too.

[sabrina 1]

59. Well said if you support torture and war crimes going unpunished. Very sad to see

on this forum which at one time totally opposed these atrocities, atrocities witnessed by Manning and reported by him as it was his duty to do, and ignored.

An illegal invasion based on lies, evolving into shame for the US as first the Abu Ghraib scandal was revealed and our claims of being 'the good guys' were shattered for all the world to see.

It is not Manning who has harmed the US, it is the liars who got us into these wars and who then oversaw war crimes and in fact, as we know from the 'torture memos' committed them, themselves.

Funny, I thought everyone here on DU opposed Bush's lies and wanted him held accountable for the harm he did to this country. When did that change?

[sabrina 1]

57. First of all, this whole 'war' was based on lies.

One of those lies was that we were there to 'shut down' Saddam Hussein's torture chambers. We all know now how that turned out. We now have people in this country contradicting themselves when they were lying to get support for this illegal, immoral invasion, by attempting to JUSTIFY torture.

What he reported was the torture of Iraqi citizens, who also, foolishly, believed the US when they were told that we were 'bringing them democracy'. They actually believed that it would be okay in this new 'democracy' we claim to have created, to exercise their right to free speech. They thought they had the right to protest, PEACEFULLY, with signs, some of the actions of this new, 'democratic' government they were told was there to represent them.

They were wrong. They were arrested for holding signs and tortured for daring to protest the replacement of Saddam Hussein. Like Manning, they were duped, nothing much had changed after all.

Since Manning witnessed these war crimes, committed by our newly created 'democratic' allies, he reported them. He was ignored. Imo, he should not have been surprised since we've all learned that torture is now acceptable in our own democracy.

I have read his thoughts on his own transformation from total support for the invasion to being unable as a human being, to witness these crimes and remain silent about them.

What you are saying is that the US has zero obligation to the Iraqi people whose country they invaded and destroyed. Not even to protest to the government they set up about the continuation of the torture of Iraqis by SH when they dared to peacefully protest.

Iow, you are condoning 'looking the other way' rather than taking a stand. Then why didn't we do that in the first place? Why didn't we just stay out of their business since we have done not one thing to improve the lives of these people which the whole world knows?? It is wrong, it is immoral, it is not honorable, it is unethical. What Manning did is what every decent human being should do when they see a crime taking place. And even more so, he was obligated by his own oath to report such crimes.

He knew will what the consequences would be when he finally decided to take the only action he felt he could take to try to stop these crimes from continuing. So it's not a case of him looking forward to any 'cushy' life. He knew he faced jail, maybe worse, but like so many before him who had the courage to try to stop wrong-doing, he was willing to take those consequences. That is what makes him a hero.

As for any harm done, I will take Gates' assessment of the harm. He has stated that no harm was done as you claim, other than embarrassment. And even less harm would have been done if his superiors had taken war crimes seriously and shown the world they will not tolerate such crimes, whether it is Saddam Hussein or the puppet government they set up doing it.

In the end the world now knows that the US never cared about SH's torture chambers, they certainly knew about them when they were supporting him for decades.

We have been exposed, not by Manning, but our own actions, as hypocrites and liars, and THAT is what has harmed the US.

As the protesters in Tunisia and Libya and Egypt said when they were trying to overturn their own dictatorships 'we do not want American style democracy here, as they created in Iraq'. If you think that the actions of our leaders has not harmed this country all over the world, and that Manning is the problem, then all I can say is you haven't been paying attention.

Manning too wanted to get back home safely. But he could not turn away from the crimes against humanity he witnessed. Too bad there are not more like him.

[4Q2u2]

66. His only Transformation

Was from Soldier to Criminal. This barely wet behind the ears E4 who is not even remotely near complete in his training single handedly determined Nation Security Policy and National Defense Policy all in one fell swoop for an ENTIRE COUNTRY that he was not elected to lead, nor chosen to lead anything in the military. He arbitrarily determined that the whole of America and it's Military was corrupt and he needed to do something about it. He witnessed nothing, he saw videos and paperwork that fully explain nothing.
Why have a Chain of Command or elected officials when some little know it all E4 can break the Law. Usurping the Power Granted to the President and the rest of the elected officials by the AMERICAN PEOPLE. No one made this emotionally disturbed PFC, Lord King and High Protector of the Faith and America, he chose on his own to break the law, for what he perceived as Crimes against humanity. Someone with ZERO understanding of the Laws of conflict, zero understanding of Combat mindset, and the comfort of 20/20 hindsight. Much like yourself, sitting in an Ivory Tower of I know what I saw from a 8,000 miles away, while denigrating the sacrifice of thousands of good honest American Soldiers who did make a difference in the lives of the Iraqi people. Most of it good, but Manning could not handle the Military's strict conformity and you want to hang your hat on George Bush lied so American Soldiers are no good.



There were thousands upon thousands that were BETTER than him.

[Whats_that]

70. Well said...

[Recursion]

64. The torture memos were part of the Gitmo dump which WAS NOT MANNING

I don't know why three years later we're still stumbling over this. The torture memos were part of the Gitmo dump. They were not from Manning but from a still-unknown party directly to CBS.

[moondust]

30. P.J. Crowley

In 2011, State Department Spokesman P.J. Crowley had to step down after calling Manning's treatment “ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid."

http://news.yahoo.com/bradley-manning-admit-partial-guilt-wikileaks-case-215810045.html

Crowley on Current's "Viewpoint" 02/28/2013: (Paraphrasing) Wikileaks releases have negatively affected U.S. foreign policy/security posture.

[struggle4progress]

38. Crowley was looking for an excuse to resign, having already applied for the Omar Bradley chair,

a joint academic appointment at the Army War College, Dickinson College, and Penn State.; he had also applied for a media fellowship at George Washington University. News of his appointment to the Bradley chair followed several weeks after his resignation from the State Department, and for the 2011/2012 academic year he held both the Bradley chair and the fellowship

[sabrina 1]

47. None of that has anything to do what he said, which was correct. Torturing a

Last edited Fri Mar 1, 2013, 03:16 PM - Edit history (1)

whistle-blower, or any detainee for that matter, putting it as mildly as he did, 'is counter-productive'. It is a crime which he refrained from saying publicly, but his statement did contribute to ending the shameful torture of Bradley Manning and that is what he will be remembered for. He spoke the truth, mild as it was, and was the only one who had the courage to do so publicly. They should have begged him to stay since it seems no one else has the guts to speak out about these matters. But then we would have to be a country that cared about humanitarian issues for that to happen. We are a long way from being such a country, as we have learned over the past decade or so.

[struggle4progress]

61. "... I was asked .. why the United States government was "torturing" Private First Class Bradley

Manning ... The fact is the government is doing no such thing ... Private Manning is rightly facing prosecution and, if convicted, should spend a long, long time in prison ... Julian Assange and others have suggested that the release of the cables was to expose wrongdoing. Nonsense ... "
Why I called Bradley Manning's treatment 'stupid'
PJ Crowley
Tuesday 29 March 2011 11.00 EDT

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. The whistle blower goes to trial and the people whose crimes he exposed goes free.

God, bless 'murka. With liberty and justice for all.

[Peregrine]

53. This is where the ploblem lies

What he did does not fit the federal law concerning wistleblowers. Also he knowingly released classified information. If he thought the information was illegally classified, then that is what he should have reported.

Fact is that he released classified information. We all signed a form that acknowledges that the punishment for disclosing classified information is 10 years and/or $10,000 for each instance.

When I was in the Army, it was my job to find little shits like this. I worked on the Walker case chasing down the information he released.

He was also in solutary because he was a threat to release more classified information.

[woo me with science]

65. Yup.

[upi402]

37. This man has been through some serious shit

in an attempt to bring to light the true nature of government gone wrong.

[Jumpin Jack Fletch]

52. REC!!!!!

[WillyT]

62. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[whistler162]

69. Yes... along with Aldrich Ames and the Walkers

a real group of heroes!

[woo me with science]

71. K&R