Just a reminder: Desmond Tutu salutes Manning (and thank Hank, I am on the right side of history.)

[Luminous Animal]

Nobel Laureates salute Bradley Manning

By Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Mairead Maguire and Adolfo Pérez Esquivel. November 14, 2012. As published by The Nation and The Guardian (UK)

Last week, PFC Bradley Manning offered to accept responsibility for releasing classified documents as an act of conscience – not as charged by the US military. As people who have worked for decades against the increased militarization of societies and for international cooperation to end war, we are deeply dismayed by the treatment of Pfc. Bradley Manning. The military under the Obama administration has displayed a desire to over-prosecute whistle-blowing with life-in-prison charges including espionage and “aiding the enemy”, a disturbing decision which is no doubt intended to set an example.

We have dedicated our lives to working for peace because we have seen the many faces of armed conflict and violence, and we understand that no matter the cause of war, civilians always bear the brunt of the cost. With today’s advanced military technology and the continued ability of business and political elites to filter what information is made public, there exists a great barrier to many citizens being fully aware of the realities and consequences of conflicts in which their country is engaged.

Responsible governance requires fully informed citizens who can question their leadership. For those citizens worldwide who do not have direct, intimate knowledge of war, yet are still affected by rising international tensions and failing economies, the WikiLeaks releases attributed to Manning have provided unparalleled access to important facts.

http://www.bradleymanning.org/news/nobel-laureates-salute-bradley-manning

[Tx4obama]

1. And for the folks that haven't heard...

Julian Assange Praises ‘Innovator’ Matt Drudge, ‘Principled’ Rand Paul

Friday morning, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange participated in an online chat session hosted by Campus Reform, in which he offered up some special praise for conservatives Matt Drudge and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY). Assange applauded The Drudge Report for disrupting the “self-censorship of the establishment press” and held up Paul as one of the most “principled” members of the U.S. Congress.

Responding to questions from Campus Reform editor-in-chief Josiah Ryan, Assange began by calling Drudge a “news media innovator” who has been on the rise since the Monica Lewinsky scandal. “It is as a result of the self-censorship of the establishment press in the United States that gave Matt Drudge such a platform,” Assange said, “and so of course he should be applauded for breaking a lot of that censorship.”

He also noted that social media has supplanted much of what Drudge is known for, which he described as “collecting interesting rumors that looked like they might be true and publishing them.” Assange said he only agrees with “some” of Drudge’s political opinions.

“I am a big admirer of Ron Paul and Rand Paul for their very principled positions in the U.S. Congress on a number of issues,” Assange said, saying they have been some of his “strongest supporters” when it comes to attacks on WikiLeaks. He called the position of the “libertarian Republican right” an “interesting phenomenon.” He pointed out that they principle of “non-violence” could include being against both drone warfare and abortion.

-snip-

http://www.mediaite.com/online/julian-assange-praises-innovator-matt-drudge-principled-rand-paul/

[Luminous Animal]

2. OMG you are right! Tutu is an idiot! ROFL ROFL ROFL.

Transcript to the interview where Assange characterizes the Paul's politics as "simplistic position, ... undermining the principle.

Americans don't do nuance. Oh and you should read the Drudge exchange. (It is really embarrassing for you.)

http://twitlonger.com/show/n_1rlvd57

[struggle4progress]

5. Assange: "The only hope, as far as electoral politics are concerned in the United States, presently,

is the Libertarian section of the Republican Party"

So, objectively speaking, Assange supports rightwing wackos

[Mojorabbit]

34. And? Why should I care about his politics? nt

[struggle4progress]

38. Poster, to whom I responded, misrepresented Assange's views expressed in article

I expect some DUers may find it useful to know, that Assange's current American political heroes are the rightwing libertarians in our current Congress, and may find this fact provides some useful insights into what Assange actually thinks he's doing and hopes to accomplish

YMMV, of course, and you are free to pay attention to, or ignore, details according to your own preferences

[Mojorabbit]

39. We have known he favored libertarians since he first released information.

It isn't anything new afaik. I am supportive of what he is doing. His politics are not on my radar.

edited to change know to known Past my bedtime. Night. Sleep well.

[uponit7771]

10. FUCKIN WOW!! I just lost all respect for Assange...thx for this, the whole SnowGlen shit is looking

...smellier and smellier

[Union Scribe]

20. "I just lost all respect for Assange..."

Could you point out the post(s) where you had said respect. I'm not doubting you of course, but would find those fascinating to read.

[uponit7771]

28. I can only have respect via anonymous post on a forum

[Union Scribe]

29. So, sadly, no is the answer? nt

[uponit7771]

41. It was a question not a statement....still would like to know an answer from you

[sabrina 1]

22. Are you in the wrong thread? Tutu salutes Bradley Manning is the topic. So do I. How about you?

You haven't commented on the topic of the OP.

[Luminous Animal]

3. Thank Manning... August 18th letter writing campaign.

http://amnesty4manning.wordpress.com/2013/08/04/thankmanning/

[struggle4progress]

6. I think all Manning's "supporters" should commit, for the next twenty years,

to read one new document every day from his massive document release and then to write him a letter every day to thank him: that way, every "supporter" would read through 1% of the release and he'd have mail to read

[Bluenorthwest]

13. This is a GD thread about a statement by Desmond Tutu. It is not a Meta thread about how others

disappoint you. So whining about what you think DUers should do is not only off topic you have no standing to preach and lecture others.
Are you able in anyway to comment on Desmond Tutu's words? The subject of the thread? Or is whining and wailing about the 'sinners' around you all you have to offer?

[stevenleser]

25. They can't respond to you on that point. It would require them to admit they are wrong.

They're trying to cling to the idea that the indiscriminate release of 700,000 documents that one has not even read is somehow a great thing.

[sabrina 1]

26. I've read possibly thousands of them. And the information in them is stunning. In fact

several prominent news outlets organized them into easily researched formats.

Did you really think it was difficult to read them? It's not, I find them fascinating, easy to read and very, very informative. A piece of history, not a good period in OUR history sadly. Most are from the Bush era. Which makes me wonder why any Democrat would be opposed to their release.

If you are looking for information all you have to do is to go to some of the news organizations who have filed them in order making it very easy to research by country, by topic etc.

Millions of people around the world have done so. War crimes were never even investigated. What a stain on this country that once exposed, those crimes were ignored and the world knows it.

[stevenleser]

30. There are several peoples' diaries that have been made into books. Those are fascinating too.

It's almost always fascinating to read something one wasn't meant to read. The thrill alone that it gives people makes it exciting.

That doesn't justify the illegal distribution of that information.

[sabrina 1]

31. I didn't find them exciting, I found most of what I read to be extremely disturbing. I generally

don't find reading about torture and murder of real human beings to be 'exciting'. I find it horrific and read it only because these crimes are committed in our name and we have a duty, a sad one, to be informed, unlike previous nations who turned a blind eye and later pretended not to know, and then to do everything possible to try to stop the crimes and to get those responsible prosecuted, no matter how long it takes.

And I never thought for a moment that I was reading something I 'was not meant to read'.

I have every right to know what my government is up to, especially when they are committing war crimes. And when they are cozying up to Dictators and Human Rights violators while they support them with money and arms as they terrorize their own people. Yes, we learned a lot from those leaks.

Manning's hopes for justice when he released them shows he still had faith in this country to do what was right. Like many of us during the Bush years, which is when he learned all of this, he thought that the crimes were not known to those in power, and when they found out people would be held accountable. I sympathize with him, we all thought that at one time. Not anymore. Sadly he has learned a sad lesson. However, time has a way of correcting these injustices. See South America eg, it took fifty years to prosecute their war criminals, but people will never forget injustices. So Manning may live to see justice done some day, I hope so.

I also found out that our government, the one we worked so hard to elect, directly interfered to stop the prosecution in Spain, which has jurisdiction over those crimes, from prosecuting Bush Torturers. That was a shock, even though we had wondered why those prosecutions were once again delayed.

Yes we learned a lot about our government and its foreign policies, and Bush's war crimes.

I have no idea why you would think that anyone would find all of this tragic history 'exciting' or that any American should feel they have no right to know what their government is doing in their name.

Manning is a hero for trying to do something to make this a better country.

And his treatment is another lesson learned. While War and Wall St Criminals are protected, we now know we live in a country where it is the messengers who are persecuted. I would not have believed that just a few years ago.

[stevenleser]

32. I don't put much stock in the impressions of diplomats that they send back to Foggy Bottom.

Report to Foggy Bottom: "Diplomat A met with the leader of Country C and says leader of Country C seemed very agitated today. Maybe it had something to do with economic policy Z. We should maybe help with economic policy Z."

Actual facts. Leader of Country C was worried about his colonoscopy the day after tomorrow and that is why he was agitated. He doesn't intend to implement economic policy Z.
------------------------------------------------------

Leaked cables from diplomats in the field to the State Dept at Foggy Bottom are worth as much as what I wrote above without independent verification. If something upset you, chances are just as good it was the mistaken impression of a diplomat. You could have saved yourself the aggravation.

[sabrina 1]

33. War logs, cables, war crimes on video. Support for Dictators and the cynical reasons why.

I see your acquaintance with the documents is rather limited.

I put no stock in any individual, especially in any politician. I put stock in proveen facts that are indisputable.

I put stock in seeing the children who were nearly murdered speak, shyly, hesitantly, still traumatized and probably always will be, about what happened to them. I see the terror in their beautiful eyes, and know that a crime was committed against them, a horrific crime, and our country is responsible, which means I am responsible unless I speak out strongly against it.

If just that one crime was committed in our name, it should be enough to horrify any decent people in this country. Just that one, enough.

I see apologists for the murder of children, for torture, for that crime multiplied, according to the two US soldiers who saved those children because as one of them said 'I did not lose my humanity' by tens of thousands. There SHOULD be outrage.

I see people on this site rightfully outraged when a crime is committed against ONE child here. But not a single expression of outrage for all the children, innocent children, in their OWN country where we do not belong, from some of those same people.

When politics causes cynicism to this point, where people can look at the dead bodies of children and look away and make excuses for it because of some misguided loyalty to a politician or a party, they are lost. They have lost their souls. Calling it 'pragmatic' or whatever other weasel words they come up with, doesn't restore their humanity. And I do not wish to associate with such people.

I will retain my horror at what we have done. I promised myself back when the first bomb fell on Baghdad that I would never allow myself to become immune to the murder that was being committed. And I have not.

Manning couldn't watch it either. He tried to report it. He didn't understand that we have become as monstrous as those we point fingers at. Now he does.

[Rex]

36. Nice!

That shut him up!

[stevenleser]

44. Nope, I've read plenty of them. I never confuse a memo with reality, I require verification.

I'm not going half-cocked over a memo a diplomat sends to Foggy Bottom.

[sabrina 1]

49. Well if you read them, perhaps you can explain why we are still supporting Karamov of Uzbekistan

whose human rights crimes against his own people are well documented, and confirmed in the 'memos' as you call them. Is there some reason why the US supports someone who has been accused of genocide against his own people? Was the British Ambassador who resigned in protest against his genocidal and torture policies lying?

Memo or not, we know the US is supporting him and we know why. Unless we do not have bases in Uzbekistan???

And that is just one teeny fraction of what we learned from those 'memos'. See, we don't just rely on the cables. Anyone who knows anything about news gathering knows that you use various different sources to try to verify a story. We knew even before the 'memos' as you call them, that the US was supporting the Dictator Karamov even while they lied about going to Iraq to remove a Dictator because the US 'only supports Democracy'. We saw the photos of Rumsfeld with Karamov and the fact that the US was handing over money to this Dictator while claiming to be opposed to Dictators.

We didn't really need the 'memos' to confirm those facts. We already had them. Just to use this one small part of what of what learned.

Then we read the 'memos' which were not news, merely confirmation with the added confirmation that the US KNEW he 'is a bad guy'. So every piece of information is valuable to the people who are the owners of this country, when trying to figure out how the people they hired are doing the job they gave them.

I could go on, but I look for the truth no matter where it leads, which is sometimes very hard to take when it turns out to be inconvenient to what you once believed. But in the end, the truth is all we have so I'll take the disappointments over supporting crimes for any reason, in order to help this country live up to its potential, which it sure isn't doing by supporting dictators and letting War Criminals off the hook.

[stevenleser]

50. Well, if you read them, can you explain why it was necessary for us to know the eating habits of

several world leaders. Their sexual habits? Can you explain why it was OK to leak that information?

[sabrina 1]

53. Can you answer my question, or did you only read the fluff which I mostly ignored and searched for

substance understanding that there would be a lot of extraneous material that was of no consequence. I was able to find quite a lot after skimming through what someone ate for lunch etc. Which to a leader of a country on our 'enemies' list might have some significance btw. But if that is what you were looking for, you were bound to find only that.

Most of us were looking for substance and found plenty of it.

[Mojorabbit]

35. +100 nt

[struggle4progress]

4. I admire them all but regard their support for Manning as a surrogate for other issues

War stinks; militarism stinks; the history of the Iraq war stinks; the thoughtless use of the US military to bully other countries stinks; the size of the US military stinks

Many of us will agree with all that, and more -- but we didn't learn it from Bradley Manning

Manning released about 750K documents, a handful of which might have produced important stories. In trying to assess the damage, one team spent about 850 hours examining 2K of these documents, which works out to about 25 minutes per document. If Manning had spent a tiny fraction of that time -- say, a minute per document -- reading what he was releasing, twelve hours a day, seven days a week, it would have taken him about three years to read them all. But he was in Iraq only about 7 months before being arrested. The only conclusion is he dumped most of the documents indiscriminately without knowing what was in them -- which explains why he's never said much about the thousands and thousands of important narratives he's alleged to have exposed. And it's unlikely that any of of his supporters have read many of the documents, either. Moreover, unfortunately, Manning released the documents to Assange, a person who has repeatedly in various contexts shown substantial callousness about the potential effects of his releases on other people and indifference to possible resulting loss of life

There are many reasons various people might understandably enjoy seeing American get a good smeck in the schnozz, but the effects of this don't seem particularly salutary to me, with regard to domestic politics. Manning's releases are probably the reason a 2010 whistle-blower bill suddenly died in Congress, when everyone had expected it to pass; and the next time something like that looked like it might move, Snowden popped up. By greatly complicating President Obama's efforts at diplomacy, for example, the long-term effects of Manning (and later Snowden) will simply be to strengthen the rightwing's hand in American politics -- and they're the bastards who gave us all this crap in the first place

[Enthusiast]

11. I cannot agree.

I think we are always better off to have information than not. At least since the Snowden and Manning revelations people are aware that the government is involved in some questionable activity. The level of surveillance and the propaganda has gone way too far. This wasn't something that was going to correct itself.

The most likely reason for the whistle-blower bill dying is because of pressure from those on high. It has nothing to do with Manning. They just want to be able to get away with these extra-constitutional operations without the burden of public scrutiny. Essentially they want to be able to do anything they want, including drug smuggling. They want to able to engage in Iran-Contra-like operations in an off hand callous manner. They're wrong, way wrong. And they have undermined our democracy.

[stevenleser]

15. Really? Is it better to have military secrets like how to make advanced weapons like nukes public?

Complete plans for miniaturized nukes like suitcase or backpack nukes? We should just distribute that info?

You said always, right?

Medicare should publish everyone's medical records, Social Security should publish everyone's wage records. No information the Federal Government holds should be secret, right? We're ALWAYS better off if the public has that info.

I don't think any of that is a good idea. I think it's much more complicated than "We're always better off with the information..."

[Enthusiast]

16. Way to distort.

And you know it is a distortion of my post. Are you part of the harassment assignment? Because I now have zero trust in you. I had very little to start with.

[stevenleser]

17. It's not a distortion, it's the exact point. No, it's not always better. And the moment you

acknowledge what I think is the obvious point that no we don't want every single piece of classified information out there in the public domain, you begin to realize that the fantasy of complete transparency can't happen at this point in human evolution.

It just doesn't make sense.

[Union Scribe]

23. Well that's a new one, anyway.

You don't deserve a transparent government because evolution. Lol.

[sabrina 1]

37. And if you knew anything aqbout Manning you would know that he carefully chose what to release

and what not to release. He had access to top secret material but did not release it.

As an analyst he knew the categories, classified, secret, top secret eg, and what they meant. He released material that was listed as 'classified'. He made a deliberate decision not to release anything that was 'top secret'. Most of what he did release should not even have been classified.

It would be the equivalent of someone going to the library to find something they could read to their children. They would not go to the 'Steamy Romance' section. He knew that what he released would not be harmful to the US, as Gates himselfs confirmed.

[stevenleser]

45. No, he didn't. He did not read through 700,000 diplomatic cables. PLUS he apologized for hurting

people.

[sabrina 1]

46. His 'apology' meaningless. People who have been tortured and persecuted are understandably

going to say whatever will stop the torture. Which is why testimony from individuals who have been subjected to torture and long term solitary confinement is often not allowed or depended on to prosecute crimes.

Manning explained himself how he knew what he was releasing. You appear to be grossly misinformed on this issue. His own statements, BEFORE HE WAS TORTURED, clarify how he chose and what he read before releasing anything.

I will repeat, for your benefit and this has been confirmed by experts on this topic. the material analysts like Manning have access to is categorized from unclassified to top secret. Even a child would know what would be harmful to the US without even reading it especially a good analyst like Manning.

HE DID NOT RELEASE ANY MATERIAL THAT WAS CATEGORIZED AS TOP SECRET because his intention was NOT TO HARM the country, it was to expose crimes, which he did, for the BENEFIT of his country.

His apology was made under duress and means nothing other than to hopefully get him a lighter sentence. All of those who support him understand that.

What means something are his own words before he was tortured. And when there is accountability for the War Crimes, and some day there will be, he will be free to speak without fear once again.

[stevenleser]

48. That's what defense attorneys are for. If his apology was B.S., his attorney could have told us that

That line of reasoning doesnt work.

[sabrina 1]

52. Well, that is my point. Defense attorneys have a duty to try to get the best deal for their clients

and considering the circumstances regarding Whistle Blowing in this country right now, there was no chance of any real justice for Manning, which their treatment of him proved beyond a doubt. So his defense abandoned any attempt to try to do that and turned to the only way to try to help him. They advised him to apologize.

It happens all the time, people who are completely innocent who have been wrongfully convicted, are often advised to take a plea deal where they will receive far less punishment in return for confessing to something they did not do. It is a huge flaw in our judicial system. And many of those who took such deals have later been exonerated, if they are lucky. But the stigma of admitting to wrongdoing is what the prosecution wants, in order to try to exonerate THEMSELVES for prosecutions they know were wrong.

His confession was coerced due to torture and threats of over 90 years in prison for being a Whistle Blower.

[stevenleser]

19. I think I agree with everything you wrote. Very well said. nt

[sabrina 1]

27. Most of them relate to the Bush era. Do you think Bush's crimes should protected from exposure?

This is what gets me, if those documents had been released just a year or earlier, every Democrat in the country would have been cheering them on and Manning would have been a hero, as others who exposed Bush crimes.

It seems to me that the ONLY reason for the anger at Manning by SOME on the Left was the timing of the release, that they never bothered to try to read any of them, assuming they were an attack on THEIR President.

What that means to me is that there are people on the left as well as on the right who never really cared about the issues they claimed to care about, it was all politics to them and they are now willing to turn a blind eye to Bush's crimes in a foolish and uninformed attempt to defend their 'team'.

I am glad we have found this out, because before all this I really believed that Democrats were very different from Republicans, that none of them would every put their party before this country. I was wrong and I'm always glad to learn important lessons like this.

[Quantess]

7. You know,

of the 3 men who are often discussed lately: first Julian Assange, then Bradley Manning, then Edward Snowden...
Bradley Manning has by far faced the worst treatment. That poor man has already been punished enough, and even if you are not 100% in favor of the potential outcome of his actions, at least you can admit that Manning's intentions were honest.

Desmond Tutu seems like a nice guy, most of us can also agree. He seems to feel pretty bad about how Manning is being treated, and he is saying positive things about Manning, who has had an undeservedly miserable existence for the past few years.

To see some keyboard warrior schmuck type out snark about Desmond Tutu's support of Bradley Manning is a new low on the DU. It's pathetic.

[stevenleser]

21. Who attacked Tutu? nt

[Quantess]

42. Post #1 was knee jerk snark against Tutu

or at least it looked that way to me.

[stevenleser]

43. Tutu wasn't mentioned or referred to in that post. In fact it was a pretty OT comment. nt

[sabrina 1]

47. Why wasn't he mentioned?? That is the topic of this OP. And that is the problem with

non-substance attacks on OPs. Whether they outright slam someone like Tutu or do it in a sneaky way, people understand the intent.

Tutu knows a great deal about oppression of those who dissent against government wrong-doing. He saw plenty of it during his long life.

Unless there is some defense for Bush's war crimes, there IS no defense for the treatment of Manning, and there is NO defense for the lack of an investigation into the crimes he revealed most of which occurred during the Bush years.

[stevenleser]

51. You will have to take that up with the person who made the comment. I flunked out of mind reading nt

[sabrina 1]

54. You don't have to be a mind reader. Some things are just obvious.

[DeSwiss]

8. If Manning wins the Nobel Peace Prize.....

...it's gonna be awkward at the alumni dinners if they put Obama, Tutu and Manning at the same table.

- K&R

[struggle4progress]

40. not a chance of that happening

[blkmusclmachine]

9. !

[Bluenorthwest]

12. Desmond Tutu is a great man. I notice much snark toward him along with the off topic comments

from those who are not thrilled to oppose Tutu while standing with Lindsay Graham, as they do. But they sure don't find a way to argue Desmond's points so they, amazingly, attack the man himself.

[Rex]

18. YEP.

Funny how that works.

[stevenleser]

24. No one snarked at Tutu under this OP. Is there another OP you are talking about? nt

[Quantess]

14. K & R