Chelsea Manning'sAcceptance Speech on Winning the Sam Adams Award & Snowden's Video Homage

[Luminous Animal]

Chelsea Manning’s Acceptance Speech

Chelsea E. Manning
89289
1300 North Warehouse Road
Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 66027-2304

2014.02.19

Statement thru Aaron Kirkhouse
For Public Release

The founders of America-fresh from a war of independence from King George lll-were particularly fearful of concentrating power. James Madison wrote that “the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” (See: Federalist Papers, No. 47 (1788))

To address these concerns, the founders of America actively took steps when drafting the Constitution and ratifying a Bill of Rights-including protections echoing the Libertarianism of John Locke-to ensure that no person be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

More recently, though, since the rise of the national security apparatus-after a brief hiatus between the fall of the Soviet Union and the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center-the American government has been pursuing an unprecedented amount of secrecy and power consolidation in the Executive branch, under the President and the Cabinet.

When drafting Article lll of the American Constitution, the founders were rather leery of accusations of treason, and accorded special protections for those accused of such a capital offense, providing that “[n]o person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”

For those of you familiar with the American Constitution, you may notice that this provision is under the Article concerning the Judiciary, Article lll, and not the Legislative or Executive Articles, land ll respectively. And, historically, when the American government accuses an American of such crimes, it has prosecuted them in a federal criminal court.

In a recent Freedom of Information Act case (See: New York Times v. United States Department of Justice, 915 F. Supp.2d 5O8, (S.D.N.Y.,2013.01.03)) – a seemingly Orwellian “newspeak” name for a statute that actually exempts categories of documents from release to the public-a federal district court judge ruled against the New York fimes and the American Civil Liberties Union. The Times and the ACLU argued that documents regarding the practice of “targeted killing” of American citizens, such as the radical Sunni cleric Anwar Nasser al-Aulaqi were in the public’s interest and were being withheld improperly.

The government first refused to acknowledge the existence of the documents, but later argued that their release could harm national security and were therefore exempt from disclosure. The court, however, felt constrained by the law and “conclud[ed] that the Government [had] not violated the FOIA by refusing to turn over the documents sought in the FOIA requests, and [could not] be compelled . . . to explain in detail the reasons why [the Government's] actions do not violate the Constitution and laws of the United States.”

However, the judge also wrote candidly about her frustration with her sense that the request “implicate[d] serious issues about the limits on the power of the Executive Branch under the Constitution and laws of the United States,” and that the Presidential “Administration ha[d] engaged in public discussion of the legality of targeted killing, even of fAmerican] citizens, but in cryptic and imprecise ways.” In other words, it wasn’t that she didn’t think that the public didn’t have a right to know-it was that she didn’t feel that she had the “legal” authority to compel disclosure.

This case, like too many others, presents a critical problem that can also be seen in several recent cases, including my court-martial. For instance, I was accused by the Executive branch, and particularly the Department of Defense, of aiding the enemy-a treasonable offense covered under Article lll of the Constitution.

Granted, I received due process. I received charges, was arraigned before a military judge for trial, and eventually acquitted. But, the al-Aulaqi case raises a fundamental question: did the American government, and particularly the same President and Department, have the power to unilaterally determine my guilt of such an offense, and execute me at the will of the pilot of an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle?

Until documents held by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel were released after significant political pressure in mid-2013, I could not tell you. And, very likely, I do not believe I could speak intelligently of the Administration’s policy on “targeted killing” today either.

There is a problem with this level of secrecy, obfuscation, and classification or protective marking, in that they supposedly protect citizens of their nation; yet, it also breeds a unilateralism that the founders feared, and deliberately tried to prevent when drafting the American Constitution. Now, we have a “disposition matrix,” classified military commissions, and foreign intelligence and surveillance courts-modern Star Chamber equivalents.

I am now accepting this award, through my friend, former school peer, and former small business partner, Aaron, for the release of a video and documents that “sparked a worldwide dialogue about the importance of government accountability for human rights abuses,” it is becoming increasingly clear to me that the dangers of withholding documents, legal interpretations, and court jurisprudence from the public that pertain to the right to “life, against such human rights abuses.

When the public lacks the ability to access what its government is doing, it ceases to be involved in the governing process. There is a distinct difference between citizens, in which people are entitled to rights and privileges protected by and from the state, and sublects, in which people are placed underthe absolute authority and control of the state. In essence, this is the difference between tyranny and freedom. To echo a maxim from Milton and Foes Friedman: a society that puts secrecy-ln the sense of state secrecy-ahead of transparency and accountability will end up neither secure nor free.

Thank you,

CHELSEA E. MANNING

[mike_c]

1. rec'd....

eom

[Autumn]

2. Recommended.n/t

[struggle4progress]

3. I hadn't realize Manning was a libertarian. Perhaps this is a new psychological development?

Friedman, of course, was an economist, with Libertarian/Republican views, closely tied to Reagan's economic policies. The "shock doctrine" originated with Friedman and his school. The relation of Friedman to long-standing Republican policy might be illustrated by a few quotes:

I am convinced that the minimum-wage law is the most anti-Negro law on our statute books (1966)

I think the government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem and very often makes the problem worse. (1975)

I am in favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it's possible (2006)

The actual Friedman quote, that Manning mangles, is

The society that puts equality before freedom will end up with neither. The society that puts freedom before equality will end up with a great measure of both (1980)

Such sloganeering must be understood in the context of Friedman's views. For Friedman, "freedom" is synonymous with concepts such as "protection of property" and the "free market"

The Manning letter puts Manning firmly in the libertarian camp

[delrem]

7. There is something detestable here. I haven't a word for it.

But there is something detestable here and it has nothing to do with Chelsea Manning or with Chelsea Manning's politics.

Maybe recognition of what is detestable here is enough, regardless of whether I have a word that exactly describes it.

[struggle4progress]

8. Poor Manning's political views are likely to be as confused as the rest of the soldier's thinking

IIRC part of the trial defense was that Manning's acts were the result of psychic turmoil, associated with various contextual or medical issues, and Manning's own accounts of the decision to release the material do suggest no particularly clear thinking, but considerable emotionalism and naïveté

There's no evidence that Manning had any coherent political or economic ideas before becoming a cause célèbre in libertarian circles

Yet here suddenly we find Manning regarding the Founding Fathers as providing proper context for the mass data-dump; proclaiming that the most burning question regarding drones is whether Manning could have been a target; and making a careful effort to work libertarian economist Milton Friedman into the discussion at any cost

[Pretzel_Warrior]

10. well written analysis

[delrem]

11. oh dear god

I can't help but

[neverforget]

13. What is with this psycho analysis of all the whistleblowers?

it's truly bizarre and Dr Frist style long distance psychology.

[delrem]

15. In this case I think it's going way into right-wing territory.

Insinuations that Chelsea Manning is somehow, inherently, a righteous target for such abuse just because of who Chelsea Manning is, and that such abuse is sufficient to write off Chelsea Manning's bravery/honor/person.

I tell you now: the DUers who're promoting that meme are evil.

[struggle4progress]

16. Milton Friedman has always been regarded as rightwing in my circles

It seems odd that Manning felt a burning need to bring Friedman into the discussion by modifying a Friedman quote

[delrem]

17. oh oh oh! You think you made "a point".

[struggle4progress]

21. Why, in your opinion, did Manning work Friedman into the letter?

It's not even an actual Friedman quote: it modifies a Friedman quote to say something quite different than Friedman intended

So there's not any real need to mention Friedman -- except, perhaps, that Friedman is adored by libertarians for insisting on the absolute priority of the free market over everything else

[delrem]

22. Any exchange that I might have with you is CLOSED.

CLOSED with finality.

[struggle4progress]

27. Well, I know I'm keeping you from your public persuasion work. Have a great day!

[neverforget]

19. agree it's over the top, ridiculous and vile

[delrem]

23. Yes. There's no "benefit of the doubt" to give.

The fuckers....

[struggle4progress]

52. I'm just not understanding why (say) Manning cites Milton Friedman. How you ever read

Milton Friedman? Friedman's views probably aren't a very good match for DU, so it's odd to see a Friedman enthusiast promoted here

Here's Friedman writing on segregation (for example) in his 1962 book Capitalism and Freedom:

... Segregation in schooling raises a particular problem not covered by the previous comments for one reason only. The reason is that schooling is, under present circumstances, primarily operated and administered by government. This means that government must make an explicit decision. It must either enforce segregation or enforce integration. Both seem to me bad solutions ... The appropriate solution is to eliminate government operation of the schools and permit parents to choose the kind of school they want their children to attend ... If a proposal like that of the preceding chapter were adopted, it would permit a variety of schools to develop, some all white, some all Negro, some mixed ... It would avoid the harsh political conflict that has been doing so much to raise social tensions and disrupt the community. It would in this special area, as the market does in general, permit co-operation without conformity ...

That's standard Friedman: the government is the problem, and free markets are the solution. Is the segregation/integration struggle causing tension? Government is obviously the problem: we must eliminate public schools so the market can resolve the problem! Sure, we'll have some segregated schools and some integrated schools, but in the end the invisible hand will work its magic work! Everybody will be happy!

Manning is so eager to put Friedman into the letter that the soldier actually modifies a Friedman quote, so as to be able to attribute to Friedman a view Friedman never actually expressed

Why?

[snooper2]

36. "evil", really? People that fuck babies are evil

talking about Manning on some random message board on the intertubes whatever your opinion is really far from evil.

[delrem]

59. True, people who fuck babies are evil.

That's quite some point that you make.

Even while I agree with your profound point that people who fuck babies are evil, I repeat my statement that:

Insinuations that Chelsea Manning is somehow, inherently, a righteous target for such abuse just because of who Chelsea Manning is, and that such abuse is sufficient to write off Chelsea Manning's bravery/honor/person.

I tell you now: the DUers who're promoting that meme are evil.

[snooper2]

60. are you okay now?

[delrem]

61. Well, I now know where you're at. nt

[hack89]

54. I take it you no experience with real evil? Nt

[ucrdem]

63. "DUers who're promoting that meme are evil"?

What meme, the one you just made up? No one has insinuated that Manning is "a righteous target for such abuse just because of who Chelsea Manning is," and if you think they have, please directly quote them.

Pointing out that Manning is a confused and unfortunate person who was shamelessly exploited by cynical right-wing Obama-bashers -- and I'm not talking about DUers -- is not "evil." It's clear-headed analysis and I'm grateful to S4P and others for supplying it. As speeches go this is an odd one and merits scrutiny.

[NuclearDem]

14. I'm not so sure you want to continue this line of thought.

[struggle4progress]

18. I understand it's heretical to regard Manning as confused rather than as a saint

But I am surprised to find Manning emerge as a libertarian

I knew Assange, Greenwald, and Snowden were libertarians

I just didn't know that about Manning: it seems a sudden development

Of course IMO it provides support for the hypothesis "Manning is confused"

[NuclearDem]

20. You may want to elaborate on why you constantly call Chelsea "confused."

[struggle4progress]

24. "Confused" is a word sometimes used to denote that a person has difficulty thinking clearly

Manning joined the army -- and then was surprised to learn that an institution, that teaches people how to kill, contained some people with a callous attitude towards other human life

That's a confused person

Excerpt from a news article during the trial: ... Showman said Manning shrieked, spit, jumped up and down, and waved his arms after being admonished for missing a morning physical training session ... Manning flipped a desk in a dispute with a sergeant, breaking a computer, and then lunged for an unattended M4 rifle ... Manning got into a dispute with Showman and punched her in the face ...

That's a confused person

Despite having been warned and subjected to remedial training on proper handling of classified information, Manning anonymously released 750K documents -- most of which Manning never read -- to someone Manning had never met and whose identity Manning could not even verify

That's a confused person

[delrem]

25. The nature of this person's ad hominem is pretty damn clear.

The purpose of it is just as clear.
It isn't something I allow in my world, except to condemn it and dismiss it.

[KittyWampus]

37. Reading this thread and your exchanges in particular I have to comment:

Weren't you paying any attention at all to the entire Manning trial?

It seems to mention the actual facts has somehow become anathema to a certain contingent here on DU.

And before the trial… before the data dump… was the FACT that Manning was sorely used by Assange.

So it is perfectly logical to wonder how someone would allow themselves to be used by a self serving, libertarian joker like Assange is an entirely legitimate train of thought.

[delrem]

55. Please link to statements made by Chelsea Manning, backing up your claims. nt

[delrem]

56. I'm waiting for links,

to show that you aren't simply *using* Chelsea Manning to attack Julian Assange with lying slander.

[msanthrope]

41. I'm not really surprised that she is a Libertarian...nor am I surprised at the Awlaki apologia....

And to answer her question regarding whether or not she could have been droned, well, yes.

Had Manning decided to flee and defect to Al Qaeda in Iraq, bringing them her document dump, yes, she could have been droned. However, since she submitted to military custody and trial, she will serve and then be freed.

[struggle4progress]

51. The al-Awlaki discussions always surprise me, primarily for the lack of coherence

I can understand people who believe war is simply wrong and we should never engage in it. Then, of course, one may sometimes be reduced to crying in the wilderness, like Jeannette Rankin after Pearl Harbor -- but in many other cases, I suspect such a principled stand can have good effects on public opinion, as became the case in the US during the Vietnam war

I can understand people who say that we should adopt a criminal justice approach, rather than a military approach, to terrorism. Then the problem can be understood as political: how does one successfully lobby Washington to switch from a military model to a criminal justice model?

I can understand people who oppose the use of drones to target specific individuals. Drones probably kill many innocent people, as all warfare methods do; for this reason the drone quite likely strikes a terror into many innocent people; and therefore blowback, in the form of anti-Americanism and increased terrorist recruitment, may be unavoidable. So there may be multiple good arguments available against drone use

But the idea, that it is somehow especially nefarious to use a drone to target a US citizen in the context of larger ongoing military operations, seems to me bizarre: I cannot see a defense of the view that a US citizen may, in a context of military conflict, relocate to a place beyond the reach of US law, and from that place engage in activities that appear to support the enemies of the US or military operations against the US, while simultaneously demanding that the US respond only through judicial process. It makes sense to say, "I, being in the custody and under the control of US authorities, demand due process." But it makes no sense to hold that a US citizen has exceptional rights, as a US citizen, to engage in activities appearing to support armed conflict against the US, from some location beyond the control of US authorities, and that therefore no action is possible in such circumstances, beyond actions judicially sanctioned: judicial process simply does not reach there

And here, again, we see Manning's profound confusion. Manning explicitly declines to be described as "pacifist" or "anti-war" but beyond that the soldier's stance is unclear. The March 2013 statement to the court shows that Manning and others were shown the 12 July 2007 video and asked to discuss whether it indicated any violation of rules of engagement, a discussion in which Manning refused to take part. Manning claims to have been shocked by the callous attitude of the aerial weapons personnel -- but this shock evidently provoked no deeper reflections on military operations or rules of engagement. Manning cites this as one reason for continuing contact with Wikileaks

Perhaps something interesting can be said about a psychological dynamic that leads from naïveté, through frustrated idealism, to cynicism, and thence to total disregard for law: "My belief, that they have utter contempt for the rules, justifies my own contempt." That might explain Manning's ready adoption of the bizarre objections to the al-Awlaki incident

[msanthrope]

53. Well, some people, like Joe Arpaio, think that American citizens get one law applied to them, and

one law applies to everyone else. That this thinking persists on DU is troubling, and shows a basic lack of knowledge of civics.

Anwar Awlaki got due process. You see, so many posters on this board think that "due process" means you get a trial. That is not true.

Due process means you get your rights under the law, same as everyone else. What rights you have in any given situation are contextual.

In Mr. Awlaki's case, he got treated like any non-custodial member of Al-Qaeda has been treated---he was killed, pursuant to the AUMF of 9/18/2001. He could have turned himself in and demanded the rights due to custodial prisoners, but he chose not to. Given the PETN bomb plot, the BA bomb plot, and the declaration of a fatwa on a female cartoonist, (and all the other crap he was into) I think President Obama was right to target him.

As for Manning, I think her attorney was correct...she is deeply confused and stressed.

[PowerToThePeople]

39. imo a lot of libertarians

at least ones that I know (where I live has LOTS of libertarian types) believe many of the same things I do (social issues), but they still have this overreaching fear of Socialism/Communism and any other more equitable economic systems. Must be left over baggage from cold war days. A lot of them even lump fascism in with soc/com. They also still think they will be a 1%er some day.

So, Socially liberal/Economic Conservative is how I see libertarian types. Hmmm...

[clarice]

45. Communism/Socialism.. any other more equitable economic systems ???????? huh?

[PowerToThePeople]

47. vs capitalism/fascism, yes. Communism/Socialism are both more equitable.

[clarice]

48. I respectfully but strongly disagree......

Do you know how many lives were lost under Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro?????????

[PowerToThePeople]

50. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot are NOT examples of the systems I listed. eom

[struggle4progress]

49. My object wasn't to discuss libertarians in general but to inquire into influences on Manning

In particular, I'm curious (say) about exactly why Milton Friedman is so important to Manning that the acceptance letter tortures a quote of Friedman, apparently with the sole aim of working Friedman's name into the letter somehow

Libertarians generally seem to me ideologues, with all the baggage that brings. Of course, I may agree with them, to some degree, on any number of issues -- but the ideological view that deferring to the free market would solve a host of other problems, or the view that government itself is an intrinsic problem, don't seem at all defensible to me

I do not regard it as accurate to call libertarians "socially liberal." Friedman, for example, is closely tied to the "shock doctrine," which is the notion that we should ignore social problems and assume hard-nosed reliance on so-called free markets will automatically solve such problems

[sabrina 1]

57. Got anything to say about the actual topic of his acceptance speech?

I thought Manning was the topic. Not Friedman. Maybe you're in the wrong thread?

[struggle4progress]

58. Who is Foes Friedman?

[hfojvt]

62. Supposed to be Rose

I imagine.

[bvar22]

4. DURec for the Whistle Blowers.

I pray that I would have the courage demonstrated by them if I were in the same situation.

It would be so much easier to just keep your mouth shut,
not make any waves,
collect the paycheck,
and go to The Beach on the Weekend.
So much easier to just Play the Game and pretend that its all some body else's problem.

Kudos to these patriots!

*Rampant Government Secrecy and Democracy can not co-exist.

*Persecution of Whistle Blowers and Democracy can not co-exist.

*Government surveillance of the citizenry and Democracy can not co-exist.

*Secret Laws and Democracy can not co-exist.

*Secret Courts and Democracy can not-co-exist.

*Our Democracy depends on an informed electorate.

You either believe in Democracy,
or you don't.
It IS that simple.

[fascisthunter]

6. I am Sooooo Proud of Our Whistleblowers

Thank God there are folks with principles and conviction fighting the fight we are not in position to! They are brave, and all more powerful than that hinders their efforts, which are worthless and cowardly in comparison!

[Pretzel_Warrior]

9. ...

[delrem]

12. Interesting that your "puke" comes from the HRC icon's mouth.

Is that what you mean to express?

[bullwinkle428]

33. Keep calm, submit, or we will CRUSH YOU. Hillary 2016!

[Logical]

31. LOL, you mad bro? nt

[jberryhill]

26. They get beer in Leavenworth?

I guess entries in the Sam Adams award contest had to be offered on a "no purchase required" basis.

[struggle4progress]

28. They don't even get internet in Leavenworth

[jberryhill]

29. So she had to mail in an entry? Wow

Kind of a Willy Wonka story.

[struggle4progress]

38. Dictated by phone? Copy given to visitor? Dunno.

My guess might be that it was arranged through the lawyer, who said weeks ago Kirkhouse would accept the award on behalf of Manning, who would "prepare a statement for Aaron to read"

29 January 2014
2014 Sam Adams Prize for Integrity in Intelligence

[jberryhill]

40. Does she get a trip to the brewery?

[msanthrope]

42. I'm betting after release. Or they could name a brew after her. nt

[Enthusiast]

30. Kicked and recommended a whole bunch.....nt

[Scuba]

32. "I received charges, was arraigned before a military judge for trial, and eventually acquitted. "

Huh? What?

[struggle4progress]

34. The judge found Manning not guilty of "aiding the enemy"

[Scuba]

35. Thanks for the clarification.

[msanthrope]

43. Kind of gives you an insight into her mindset, that someone sitting in prison would

describe themselves as "acquitted."

I'm betting the parole hearings will go poorly.

[Scuba]

44. As the poster above noted, Manning was acquitted of the "aiding the enemy" charge.

[msanthrope]

46. I know that--I just think it's a ridiculous statement to make when you are sitting in prison for

a decade or more.

Heck--I have clients that cling to that type of reasoning, so I'm not surprised by it.

[KoKo]

64. Huge Recommend!

[nilesobek]

65. Even If she is guilty I believe its a case of overkill with the wild sentence he received.

Last edited Sun Feb 23, 2014, 11:33 AM - Edit history (1)

[NuclearDem]

66. *she