The NY Times can only call the heroic Bradley a leaker as if he were incontinent and they can't use the proper term whistleblower. Snowden to them is also a leaker. If you look at the Times and other papers at the time of Ellsburg, you'll see much more support and respect which is why he never was mistreated or went to jail. The super crooks are no longer content to pull strings and commit crimes of government in private, they now want everyone to be as miserable and lacking in joie de fiver as they are.

We will all �do time� in this Dystopian Police State by remaining silent. I am Bradley Manning and YOU are Bradley Manning whether you know it or not. http://dregstudiosart.bl...are-bradley-manning.html

Power corrupts, including President Obama.

Brad - as far as I can tell, the first link : US Government's inability : does not link to a page. (404 page not found)

Thanks

Hello Brad Friedman,

As simple as I can make it. President Obama speaks with a "forked tongue". He also lies like a "rug"!

Soul Rebel @ 4:

Gracias! Fixed.

As a testament to how far down the Orwellian rabbit hole the MSM has traveled, Los Angeles Times, in a front page "news" article, described Manning's 35 year sentence as the product of "leniency."

Bradley release 700,000 documents and files without much of a glance at what they were. The point that a small percentage of them (less than 1%) might have qualified as whistleblower status doesn't change the status of the rest of them. Come on, let's be real. He just dumped them to dump them and LATER figured out his excuse would be whistleblower. Had he made some effort to edit the documents and files to find the subset that were qualified and released just those, I would believe, as many of you do, that he is a whistleblower to be protected. But he didn't. He wasn't thinking that way until after the fact.

Godspeed to Chelsea Manning!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Back in your court, Mr. President.

Manning Seeks Presidential Pardon for 35-Year Prison Term

Attorney David Coombs released this statement from his client:

Oh, and re Steve @8: Manning released the documents to WikiLeaks, which, until it became the target of a relentless propaganda barrage as a consequence of its release of the collateral murder video, was regarded by those in government as a responsible news organization.

WikiLeaks has, throughout, taken great care on what it has released and why.

BTW, the 35 year sentence was, by far, the longest ever imposed on a whistleblower.

There is no evading the fact that the documents publicized to date as the result of what Manning (a) fall well within the definition of the whistleblower statute; (b) did not place, at risk, the life of a single American soldier, (c) served to expose crimes committed by our government which claims to be acting in our names, and (d) embarrassed those who would prefer to keep their dirty secrets hidden.

Ernie@10,

So I recall last month you having in an in depth debate with Brad in one of these comment threads about Obama and whether his intentions had changed about his approach to the security state since election. You had argued that he was a pro-security hawk all along where Brad had argued, IIRC, that it would be difficult to discern such intent.

Since then the Guardian did its homework as I'm sure you've seen, by documenting his history as a senator as he sponsored a raft of bills and measures to bring more transparency and accountability to government while Bush was still president. In light of this I'm curious whether you retain you same stance, and if so, how you resolve them with his public record as senator against this backdrop?

One route that Chelsea might go is to petition the prison to grant a sex change operation then immediately report it to Faux News. The uproar could help get a pardon possibly? Oldbama's decisions seems to be guided by Fox's insannity.

Nevermind, the local news just covered it here.
The prison system only allows for therapy, not operations.

Meet the new boss... (not new anymore really, just relatively speaking)

I held out longer for Obama's moral compass than many did...just naive wishful thinking, I guess.

Don't dispare Lora, as this whole planet continues to heat up and the military and industrialist have to eggmitt their folly at all of our peril he may yet do something real. He has children too, and nobody gets out of here alive!

Certain people were very picky about the use of treason too loosely used. Treason can only be a charge if the country is at War.

Ms. Manning released the strafing video in 2010 and the War ended in December 2011.

He-she is a frigging TRAITOR that put soldiers lives at risk. A single bullet fired at a U.S. soldier due to this stolen video is one bullet too many. Unfortunately the residents of Baghdad failed to email the U.S. Army their exact motivations for shooting so Legal Proof was lacking.

Doesn't justify the mistreatment at the first detention location, but the sentence fits.

Irwin Mainway,

You appear to be a lover of empire and of empire's lies. NO ONE has been shown to be hurt by Manning's releases. Our own government has said as much. On the other hand, war crimes and other outrages have been exposed. We all have our priorities. Yours seem clear.

You probably think Daniel Ellsberg was treasonous, also.

How's it feel to be a champion of the overdog? A defender of liars, lawbreakers, and bullies?

Irwin Mainway @ 16:

Just so I'm clear here, Irwin, you're saying that Manning's release to the media of video evidence of a war crime --- U.S. troops murdering civilians and journalists who posed no threat to them (and then joking about it afterward) --- was "treason"? You are saying that it was done to aid and abet the enemy, in concert with the enemy?! Even though he was acquitted of aiding the enemy, and even though the government was unable to demonstrate any harm to anybody due to that release?

Seriously?

And, at the same time, you are arguing that war crimes should not be revealed, because doing so would "put soldiers lives at risk"? Really? That's what you're going with?

Those who defended the Nazis at Nuremberg tried a similar defense of their war crimes as well. It didn't go over any better than your argument just has. Just FYI.

Right on Brad and David.

Against my better judgement I'll comment. Ignoring the hyperbole of comparing this to Nuremberg and that kinda garbage there are several facts which apply.

First, the US military has a whistleblower hotline with an entire crew of people dedicated to investigating claims and holding people accountable for substantiated misdeeds. Manning could have taken that option. An E-1 making a whistleblower report in the military has more power than his CO as long as the report is valid. He chose not to take that action with classified material, he is not a whistleblower.

Second, the military needs to have secrets, a fact which will undoubtedly be lost on many at bradblog. This is how you keep operations and personnel as safe as possible.

Third, Manning didn't just release a video. He released thousands of secret documents. Much like the documents he released were classified, the contingency plans and changes made were classified as well. The claims that it didn't hurt anyone may or may not be true. But you can bet that the man-hours spent trying to determine the damage he did, and the changes required to movements of troops etc. were quite costly. And many of those changes probably unnecessary. But you have to assume the worst.

Fourth, the military needs to trust the people who are privy to secrets that they will follow their oath and keep those secrets safe. An operations specialist who decides, based on political ideology, to release those secrets to a "journalist" for the world to see can't happen. It doesn't matter on bit if anyone was hurt or not, or if missions were compromised or not. An example needed to be made to everyone involved in intelligence, especially during a time of war, that you aren't the judge and jury, you can't determine based on ideology what is right and wrong, and decide to post what you disagree with to facebook or any other website. Manning got off easy.

I'm off my soapbox, continue with the garbage and completely inapplicable hyperbole.

WingnutSteve returned to say @ 20:

I'm off my soapbox, continue with the garbage and completely inapplicable hyperbole.

Speaking of "completely inapplicable hyperbole"...

the military needs to have secrets, a fact which will undoubtedly be lost on many at bradblog.

It seems clear that you hate yourself, and your life, Steve, but do you need to pull shit completely out of your ass to help you try and make your point against people you disagree with, none of whom I know have ever even remotely suggested anything like what you just said?

But you can bet that the man-hours spent trying to determine the damage he did, and the changes required to movements of troops etc. were quite costly.

"Movements of troops"? What did Manning release that had anything to do with "movement of troops"? (Answer: Nothing, since he released no "top secret" information, and from what I understand, troop movement would be classified as such. I'm happy to stand corrected if you have evidence to back up your assertion, but, otherwise, please see "pulling stuff out of ass" remark above.)

An operations specialist who decides, based on political ideology, to release those secrets to a "journalist" for the world to see can't happen.

What "political ideology" are you referring to?

Manning got off easy.

"Easy"? Manning received a longer sentence than even spies who sold secrets to actual enemies. How does that amount to "got off easy" in Wingnut Land? (Or we back to "pulling stuff out of ass" and "hyperbole" again?)

There are reasons the 1% in uniform do not want certain things known:

... during his days as a four-star general, he was once escorted by 28 police motorcycles as he traveled from his Central Command headquarters in Tampa to socialite Jill Kelley’s mansion ...

The commanders who lead the nation’s military services and those who oversee troops around the world enjoy an array of perquisites befitting a billionaire, including executive jets, palatial homes, drivers, security guards and aides to carry their bags, press their uniforms and track their schedules in 10-minute increments. Their food is prepared by gourmet chefs. If they want music with their dinner parties, their staff can summon a string quartet or a choir.

The elite regional commanders who preside over large swaths of the planet don’t have to settle for Gulfstream V jets. They each have a C-40, the military equivalent of a Boeing 737 ...

(American Feudalism, quoting Washington Post). Manning let some of it out so the vassals sent their message to the serfs.

Steve Snyder,

War crimes are not hyperbole. If you want to either support or turn a blind eye to war crimes cuz you don't mind them when committed by your side, that's your hypocritical business. If you don't understand the historical precedence that demands that war crimes not be tolerated, that's your ignorance. If you don't understand heroic acts of self-sacrifice and conscience as exemplified by Daniel Ellsberg, Bradley Manning, and Edward Snowden, one has to wonder what the hell happened to you.

Aside from 'getting people shot' kinds of harm, any number of stories were published at the time (in the main stream media, no less) about embarassing diplomatic cables being released in the Manning documents.

Stuff that insulted various of our allies, let on about our negotiating positions and theirs, stuff like that. Including the nifty information about how various middle eastern countries, when in actual secret negotiations with the United States, don't care at all about the Palestinians and cut them out of any deals; content to use them as publicity distractions.

It warned our allies that we can't keep secrets and it harmed our negotiating positions for the future.

Is that 'harm'?

Luagha,

I guess in part it would depend on what one thinks of our and our allies various negotiating positions.

But weren't there a couple of big muckedy mucks(Gates and Biden?) who downplayed the importance of the leaks saying there was nothing really vital or new in them? Course this was usually counterweighted by other big muckedy mucks saying how disastrous and "unlawful" Manning's actions were.

Guess it also depends on how much one is inclined to believe one's own lying government vs how much one craves to know so many underlying truths that, if known, might dramatically affect public(and hence, government)opinion on any number of U.S. policies.

Do you think there is "harm" in our side committing war crimes? With no acknowledgment or accountability? Do you think there is "harm" in classifying war crimes as secret?

Dear Brad:

Various news reports keep mentioning how Manning is "eligible for parole” in 9 years or 12 years or some such figure as if there was some reasonable chance that he would get paroled. Here is a link to an article that discusses the question in some depth:

http://www.emptywheel.ne...and-appeal-implications/

This article at most says that Manning “could potentially be eligible for release in as little as 9 years from now” but doesn’t attempt to predict what his chances are of actually getting paroled. I would not bet on the military actually paroling him.

Of course, if the 35 year sentence pressured Manning to testify against Assange, for example, and the government got Assange convicted, then it’s likely that his sentence would be reduced for “substantial assistance to authorities” and he could well get released and forgotten about. I think this is why Manning got the 35 year sentence to begin with.

Luagha @ 24:

Embarrassing people and/or "harming" negotiating positions is not a crime, to my knowledge. Certainly not one Manning was either tried or convicted for 35 years in prison for.

People give away negotiating positions all the time, for all sorts of reasons, even if it can, I concede, cause much inconvenience for some.

It should also be noted that some of those cables helped our policy positions. For example, the entire nation of Tunisia was overthrown, arguably, thanks to revelations by Manning. That, in turn, led to the entire Arab Spring which --- no matter what instability has come in its wake (that's a different issue --- is something the U.S. was, at least publicly, supportive of.