Bradley Manning’s Statement

Just by how Bradley Manning was treated and by the continued existence of Guantanamo bay's facility the United States has lost a large chunk of its voice the world over when they start talking about human rights.<p>How far the US Government will sink before they realize that every time they do something like this they are hurting their own interests is anybody's guess. Be it drone attacks that kill children as collateral damage (Oh, but we apologized) or torture dressed up as self protection it hardly matters.<p>If you want to criticize the world then you need to set an example, not by taking out your rage on others but by wondering what it is that you are doing wrong and then correcting that.<p>Slowly but surely every 'own goal' is reducing the United States' importance on the world stage. And that's a real pity because we really do need an entity that is a little larger than most that can serve as a role model for the rest. As it is the role model seems to be that might makes right and that if you deny your problems and your mistakes that you can get away with it. The rules apply to everybody but you.

You cannot look at any statement from him without realizing he's been kept in extremely hostile conditions, just this side of torture, WITHOUT TRIAL for over 1000 days (nearly three years!) being told he's facing execution or life imprisonment.<p>Any of us would say ANYTHING facing that. Anything.<p>They are roasting him alive now, government has over 140 "witnesses" to put on the stand.<p>They are going to make an example out of him, it's going to be horrible.

A lot has been written and said about Bradley Manning but it always seemed such a distant thing. Reading this statement made me realize how he's a real person that I can identify with rather than just some guy in a news article.

Interesting that Manning tried to contact the Washington Post, but got blown off... Tried the NYTimes, and they didn't return his call. That may say something about the media, but I'm more curious if the reaction by the US government and other officials to the leaks would have been the same if those papers had published the material, instead of Wikileaks?

50 years from now everyone involved in these proceedings still alive will be ashamed of what transpired. We'll be issuing apologies and talking about 'how this never should have happened.' Then it will happen again in slightly different circumstances and the people alive then will find slightly different justifications for their actions.

The third from last section, titled "Facts regarding the unauthorized disclosure of Other Government Documents" is very vague. While all other sections detail the information released, this one does not. Possibly, I suppose, because it never made it to the public. Does anyone have any idea what it could be referring to?

Website is offline, here is the google cache:<p><a href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&#38;safe=off&#38;output=search&#38;q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.bradleymanning.org%2Fnews%2Fupdate-3113-bradley-mannings-statement-taking-responsibility-for-releasing-docs&#38;oq=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.bradleymanning.org%2Fnews%2Fupdate-3113-bradley-mannings-statement-taking-responsibility-for-releasing-docs" rel="nofollow">http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&#38;safe=...</a>

I am terribly, interminably indebted to Bradley Manning. I cannot possibly repay the debt of conscience he managed to summon up.

Interesting there was no mention from him about how he was treated while incarcerated, or about being held for so long without charge/trial.

It's funny to see how common the tools he uses are :<p>Dell laptops, WinRAR, wget...<p>You would think the army has some fancy tech, apparently not.

I think the thing I was <i>most</i> surprised about is that the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs were the very first thing Manning had uploaded to WikiLeaks, and this happened far <i>before</i> Manning had been given the order to determine what other anti-Maliki literature was being drummed up by the FP 15.<p>I had always had the impression that Manning had been generally dissatisfied by American geopolitics but that the FP 15 order had been the last straw for him and that he'd started divulging information to WikiLeaks all at once.<p>It wasn't like that at all. He released the Iraq/Afghanistan actions database way before any of that. Before he saw the "Collateral Murder" video. Before the FP 15. Even before he punched a soldier in the face (around 8 May 2010, which was his "altercation").<p>WTF. He was essentially a WikiLeaks mole working on the inside... even though he made clear that no one from WikiLeaks pressured him into divulging information he also freely admits that some of the information he went out of the way to find, was simply because it was a matter of discussion in the WikiLeaks IRC/Jabber chat.<p>He freely admits releasing documents that he felt could possibly harm the U.S. as well: "Of the documents release[d], the cables were the only one I was not absolutely certain couldn’t harm the United States."<p>And why did he release these cables if they were the only documents that were risky? "I believed exposing this information might make some within the Department of State and other government entities unhappy."<p>He also talked about reading quotes after WWI, about how "the world would be a better place if states would avoid making secret pacts and deals with and against each other." Certainly true! However he seemed to have missed the history lesson from <i>WWII</i>, where the U.K. and the U.S. both enjoyed significant military advantages thanks to their signals intelligence and codebreaking feats.<p>If Manning were as smart an intelligence analyst as he claims to be then he should know full well that information which is unclassified individually may still be a risk to national security (and therefore classified) if released as an aggregate.<p>The U.S. did this to the Japanese several before the Battle of Midway; for instance an increase in message traffic from the Japanese Naval base at Truk was a clue to the intelligence analysts at Station Hypo at Pearl Harbor that the Japanese fleet was prepping for a major operation, <i>even though they couldn't break the code</i>. (A good book to read regarding this is Ian Toll's "Pacific Crucible").<p>I suppose at least I can't say he was doing this to get back at the Army per se, since he'd done <i>everything</i> before they reduced him in rate. But conversely, much of what he leaked was not "war crimes" at all, but merely stuff to "start a debate".<p>I'm not really sure what to think about all of it. It seems to me that based on his <i>very half-hearted</i> attempts to go to the media that he was intending all along to go to WikiLeaks (whether consciously or not), and that the reasoning for it was not about specific things at all (at least the initial leaks).<p>I wish he would have talked about why he felt the need to brag to Lamo about it. Maybe that (talking to Lamo) was brought on by his stress from his punishment from the Army, it would almost be doubly ironic if the way he unmasked himself ultimately came about from his own fist hitting the face of another soldier.

&#62;&#62; The dehumanized the individuals they were engaging and seemed to not value human life by referring &#62;&#62; to them as quote “dead bastards” unquote and congratulating each other on the ability to kill in &#62;&#62; large numbers. At one point in the video there is an individual on the ground attempting to crawl &#62;&#62; to safety. The individual is seriously wounded. Instead of calling for medical attention to the &#62;&#62; location, one of the aerial weapons team crew members verbally asks for the wounded person to pick &#62;&#62; up a weapon so that he can have a reason to engage. For me, this seems similar to a child torturing &#62;&#62; ants with a magnifying glass.<p>&#62;&#62; Shortly after the second engagement, a mechanized infantry unit arrives at the scene. Within &#62;&#62; minutes, the aerial weapons team crew learns that children were in the van and despite the &#62;&#62; injuries the crew exhibits no remorse. Instead, they downplay the significance of their actions, &#62;&#62; saying quote ‘Well, it’s their fault for bringing their kid’s into a battle’ unquote.<p>&#62;&#62; The aerial weapons team crew members sound like they lack sympathy for the children or the &#62;&#62; parents. Later in a particularly disturbing manner, the aerial weapons team verbalizes enjoyment &#62;&#62; at the sight of one of the ground vehicles driving over a body– or one of the bodies. As I &#62;&#62; continued my research, I found an article discussing the book, The Good Soldiers, written by &#62;&#62; Washington Post writer David Finkel.<p>&#62;&#62; He writes that the soldier finds him and sees him gesture with his two forefingers together, a &#62;&#62; common method in the Middle East to communicate that they are friendly. However, instead of &#62;&#62; assisting him, the soldier makes an obscene gesture extending his middle finger.<p>&#62;&#62; The individual apparently dies shortly thereafter. Reading this, I can only think of how this &#62;&#62; person was simply trying to help others, and then he quickly finds he needs help as well. To make &#62;&#62; matter worse, in the last moments of his life, he continues to express his friendly gesture– only &#62;&#62; to find himself receiving this well known gesture of unfriendliness. For me it’s all a big mess, &#62;&#62; and I am left wondering what these things mean, and how it all fits together. It burdens me &#62;&#62; emotionally.<p>This is all that matters... the discussion on Bradley is valid but why isn't US/these soldiers on a court to answer this sort of shit? You should be ashamed of your country and try to do something about it<p>So many lies, fuck the power.

About time.