

I Am Bradley Manning - volandovengo
http://iam.bradleymanning.org/

======
mpyne
1\. I like how they attack the strawman with their "aiding the enemy" means
"the public is the enemy?!?" claim. They were suspiciously quiet about the
news OBL (presumably an enemy) had information leaked by Pfc. Manning.

But I suppose propaganda techniques are only wrong when it's the government or
McDonald's, eh?

2\. Manning has _explicitly_ been removed from death penalty consideration
earlier in the trial process. The prosecutor had to make that declaration
already, so it's not something they can back out of. But I guess lies are only
wrong when said by the government?

3\. I'm not so sure that they would _want_ him to take credit for the tens of
thousands of persons killed in the aggregate from Arab Spring uprisings. Even
if we consider the formation of democracies a benefit worth the price, that
same exact logic would also justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq...

3a. "There is no evidence that anyone died as a result of the leaked
information...". Contrast with "The information that Bradley gave to the
public has been a catalyst for pro-democracy movements in the Arab world...".

Alright guys, either have the cake, or eat the cake. If he truly catalyzed the
Arab Spring then some number of persons died as a result of the leaked
information. If no one died because of information he leaked then why try to
claim credit for those uprisings?

~~~
nikcub
800 people died in Egypt, 300 in Tunisia, 8 in Algeria, 120 in Bahrain

To put this into context, over 2000 people died in Iraq _in only the last
month_. This is years after the war being 'over' and many more years after
mission accomplished, and the monthly death total is still greater than the
net total of the Arab Spring revolutions

You _can 't compare_ Iraq to the Arab spring nations that democratized
peacefully. You can't even compre Iraq to the Arab Spring countries that
democratized via conflict - 25,000 in Lybia, 90,000 in Syria so far.

 _Over six hundred thousand people_ died in Iraq and the war completely
destabilized the region. We are only beginning to understand the effects of
the Shi'a awakening in the Middle East. Iran was essentially handed an
enlarged sphere of influence courtesy of the USA. The rest of the Arab world
will achieve a much better end result at a scale that is an order of magnitude
lower in deaths.

There is also the fact that the people who die in handovers in Algiers, Tunis
or Cairo are giving their lives to a cause they believe in. 90% of the people
who died in Iraq didn't get that choice - they were shot at and blown up as
they went to the market, dropped their kids of at school and attempted to make
a life for themselves.

The Arab spring countries were stuck and they were only getting out of their
situation in a tough way. That is why there has been a status quo in the
region for so long - the cold war put a lid on it but it was always simmering.
If you ask them which prescription they prefer - the American invasion or the
America document leak, I know which way 100% of them are going to go.

The treatment of Manning was so poor[1], that Obama's own white house checked
with the Pentagon to make sure what they were doing was legal (keeping him in
solitary, naked for months). See what Amnesty and others had to say:

[http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/us-accused-
inhuma...](http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/us-accused-inhumane-
treatment-over-wikileaks-soldier-case-2011-01-24)

see also 'What did Bradely Manning experience':

[http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/05/extreme-
sol...](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/05/extreme-solitary-
confinement-what-did-bradley-manning-experience.html)

I know the reason why they put him through that - it is because Manning was
expecting life in prison or to be executed for what he did. He was smiling as
he was picked up at his FOB in Iraq, and that must have frustrated the
military to know this guy had the balls to stand up to them and not cower when
caught.

All of the fear mongering about the damage caused by Mannings leaks (the
government knew what would leak before Wikileaks released it since WL had sat
on it for a while) turned out to be completely false. The USA is still a
superpower, diplomats are still diplomats and it didn't result in a terrorist
attack, or worse. The same playbook is being used against Snowden - attack the
personal character of the leaker to distract from the information (this has
happen with Assange, Manning and now Snowden) and label him a traitor who is
aiding the enemy (the charge of aiding the enemy against Manning is completely
ludicrous and surreal. UBL also had copies of the NY Times, he also had
pornography).

IMO 'aiding the enemy' is one of those bullshit catch-all laws that is widely
interpreted just like 'money laundering' and 'tax evasion' \- to be used when
you want to jail someone but don't have much else. Or even better, an extra
few charges and 20 year in sentencing guideline that can be plead down and
avoid a trial (since that is what happens in 90% of federal trials - they
don't even make the court, the prosecutors stack the charges and overwhelm the
defense, having them plead down to what appears as a good deal). 'Aiding the
enemy' doesn't actually require any actual evidence of direct aid to the enemy
or the enemy receiving a benefit.

[1] I don't know how you don't mention the treatment of Manning. It was a
major international news item for months, with most official government press
conferences being tied up around questions of his treatment, a lot of
international bodies lobbying the US government to do something about it,
other foreign leaders speaking up about it, etc.

~~~
mpyne
I'm glad you think the war in Iraq was bad, because so do I.

But why would it be OK for someone to have a hand in 116,000+ deaths for
democracy but not be OK to have a hand in 600,000+? There's no good answer to
this question, which is why I don't see why Manning would want to be known as
the instigator of it all.

The rest of your points, even if we simply specify them as true, don't really
explain why Manning's own supporters engage in lies and propaganda. So while
it's nice to see them again after so long, we pretty much do already know
about those claims.

E.g. the maltreatment; the trial judge agrees with you and Amnesty
International, so why was that not put on the website? At least that would
have been truthful. I would think it would also further the cause of the site
in getting the "aiding the enemy" charge dropped, if that's really what they
were about.

> I know the reason why they put him through that - it is because Manning was
> expecting life in prison or to be executed for what he did.

If what you say is true, then the military would also have mistreated Sgt.
Bales, but they didn't. Murder is a capital offense too, in the military.

On the other hand, Manning's own lawyer said that Manning "joked" about
killing himself, which is typically a fairly solid plan for landing yourself
on Prevention of Suicide Watch status in a military prison. Doesn't excuse
keeping him in that status after his military psychiatrist deemed him not a
suicide risk, which is why the judge reduced his sentence, but nor does it
require some massive conspiracy to explain his treatment.

So, if _I_ were a supporter of Manning I wouldn't even worry a bit about the
charge of "aiding the enemy", which is almost trivially proven by the
prosecution given the way the UCMJ is written. All they really have to prove
is that there exists at least one classified document that Manning felt would
be posted to the Internet by WikiLeaks, and that there exists at least one
enemy of the U.S. with direct or indirect access to WikiLeaks.

Instead his supporters should focus on getting his eventual sentence reduced
(though Manning himself is doing far better to help his cause than his
supporters are, IMHO).

~~~
rowanseymour
_But why would it be OK for someone to have a hand in 116,000+ deaths for
democracy but not be OK to have a hand in 600,000+? There 's no good answer to
this question, which is why I don't see why Manning would want to be known as
the instigator of it all._

"have a hand" is a little too ambiguous don't you think? There is a
significant moral difference between "providing information" (what Manning
did), and "invading a sovereign state using fairly indiscriminate bombing
after a propaganda campaign about WMDs" (what the coalition forces did)

------
johnnyanony
i hope he gets the prize, he will be the first winner jailed by another peace
prize winner, fucking hilarious.

~~~
ethanazir
probably the last Peace prize awarded under an a priori illusion.

~~~
mikeash
How delightfully optimistic!

------
gridmaths
imho, great video, but please change the initial video screenshot.

The pre-play screenshot seems a bit angry, and Im note sure how it ties in? In
contrast, the content of the video I think was on-target, and thought
provoking.

A shot of manning being 'escorted' to trial, or just his face would be more
suitable I think.

or you could lead with the text slide "Is truth the Enemy? ..".. which is
impactful.

Thanks for doing this!

------
subpixel
FWIW I do believe Bradley Manning deserves moral and legal support. But this
video is both propagandistic and vague. Like, except for 3 or 4 Hollywood
celebrities, who are these people? And are they doing more than making a
video?

------
infinitone
These people clearly missed the point of Manning's leaks.

Its like how Christians worship Jesus instead of God. The point of the leaks
was to shed light on the atrocities committed by the government not so that
Manning is glorified into some sort of saint. I mean, I'm all for doing that-
but wtf is the point when the same atrocities will happen again on some other
day. You can argue that so that future leakers will get protection- well let
me remind you there won't be any future leakers present anyway. The government
will certainly start to smarten up about who they choose that pulls the
trigger.

------
akiselev
Nobel Peace Prize nominee? Citation? Nobel Laureates are expressly prohibited
from talking about the nomination process until 50 years after the fact.

~~~
streptomycin
[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57572488/bradley-
manning...](http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57572488/bradley-manning-
malala-among-nobel-peace-prize-nominees/)

~~~
akiselev
Ah ok. That's very misleading. This is a pretty open call for nominations from
the public. The actual people selected from that group that Laureates vote on
is kept secret.

------
ChrisAntaki
This issue is unifying a lot of people

------
Systemic33
Click bait title -1

~~~
rbanffy
It's the name of the site.

------
exposing_truth
The site features another falsehood: "There is no evidence that anyone died as
a result of the leaked information"

Not true. The cables contained the actual names of Afghans who helped us fight
the Taliban. Once their names were exposed, unredacted, via the Wikileaks
calbes, "punishment" and death -- courtesy of the ascendant Taliban leaders --
came quickly.

[http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2010/07/28/murphy-
rides-...](http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2010/07/28/murphy-rides-again/)

Wretchard continues his story:

"Yet the dead are the lucky ones. The more unfortunate may wind up in a
torture chamber similar to one found by Coldstream Guards. It features such
amenities as chains to hang prisoners from walls. Not that the inmates would
want to walk on the floor: that features broken glass. And there is limb
amputation, kneecapping with an electric drill, eye gouging, bone-breaking or
ritual rape to smash the will. Where the offender is not himself available
punishment will be visited on his relatives."

No, the antics of Manning and Assange were not without bad consequences.

~~~
gruseom
This is a troll. I like to look at contrarian evidence, so I read the article.
It contains zero evidence and is just a creepy piece of fantasy writing.

Perhaps evidence does exist, but odds are we'd have heard about it by now,
given how hard it's been sought (presumably by people who don't lack for media
access).

~~~
expoze_truth
"Perhaps evidence does exist, but odds are we'd have heard about it by now"

But that depends on how you -- and others -- filter your news sources. Many on
one side of the political spectrum have no clue how far the IRS over-reached
when investigating political enemies ... and they won't know, because they
trust their sources of news and unfortunately don't look for contrarian
viewpoints like you do.

(btw: I'm not blaming you of the above; you've proven you seek diverse sources
of information)

