9 ms·
Bradley Manning’s Statement
- throwaway125 14y agoA 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.
- jbester 14y agoIn 2011, Wired posted[1] the transcript of conversations between Bradley Manning and Lamo, the man who informed on him. It's an interesting read and gives a window, albeit a small one, into his mental state and underlying motives. I would not consider the transcript complimentary, it does not portray a high-minded, moral crusader. It portrays Manning, the depressed, confused, trans-gendered person, acting out against the Military Establishment. [1] http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/07/manning-lamo-logs/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/07/manning-lamo-logs/
- ok_craig 14y agoAnd in reality, he's probably a mix of all of the above, like most people. Everyone's got ideals, everyone's got insecurities. We tend to project our insecurities more when we're having casual conversation with people we consider friends. We tend to project our ideals more when we're having serious philosophic debate, defending our character, or, you know, being charged with war crimes.
- jbester 14y agoTechnically, he's charged with espionage and giving aid to the enemy. With the stated motive of "sparking a public debate" regarding current war policy, a more targeted leak would have achieved the stated goal, in line, with, say, the pentagon papers or the AT&T/NSA leaks or even the his own later leak of the gun-cam video. I have a hard time believing the flagrant and wanton release of material was and is not suicide by Court Martial.
- ok_craig 14y agoIt's pretty easy to call someone a martyr and leave it at that. Neither you nor I really know Bradley Manning. For someone who's not really a journalist, knowing exactly what a more "targeted" leak would entail is not exactly instinct. He's pleading guilty to releasing the information, so if you want to argue he's guilty of aiding the enemy based on what he released, I'm happy to hear it. But so far, there's no evidence that he wanted to be caught. You're trying to extrapolate character judgments from a series of online conversations between him and one individual, and the charges against him. Meanwhile, ignoring his own stated motives or things like the opinions of people who know him more intimately. It's just not convincing.
- mpyne 14y agoEven the U.S. government isn't stupid enough to execute Pfc. Manning for aiding the enemy. And even if the U.S. government was, Col. Lind (given that she will be the single-point-of-lightning-rod for any sentence adjudged) would not be that stupid as she probably has better things to do than get "martyred" herself after the trial is over. But let's say that Col. Lind wants to live in a "Witness Protection"-esque program for the rest of her life... any sentence of execution has to be approved by the President himself (MCM Rule 1207), and whatever else you might say about him, he's more politically-savvy than to allow that to happen. But wait.... this is all only possible if the death penalty was declared from the start, and the government chose from the beginning not to go for it. So it looks like "suicide by court-martial" is out of the running, at least.
- dmm 14y agoThe proscecuter of the case said they are not pursuing the death penalty.
- steveklabnik 14y ago> trans-gendered Thank you.
- Juha 14y agoThat's surprisingly interesting to read (at least the start), lots of raw information. One fun thing I noticed, he's using sed-syntax to correct his spelling mistakes. Is that normal or is he true hacker? For example he writes "s/Hilary/Hillary". Good hint on how safe/unsafe RSA actually is: "bradass87: 2048… never heard of it being broken publicly… NSA can feasibly do it, if they want to allocate national level “number-crunching” time to do it…"
- Kim_Bruning 14y agoHe also mentioned using sftp, wget, etc. in his latest statement. I think he's probably a hacker. :-)
- codemac 14y agoWebsite is offline, here is the google cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&output=search&q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.bradleymanning.org%2Fnews%2Fupdate-3113-bradley-mannings-statement-taking-responsibility-for-releasing-docs&oq=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.bradleymanning.org%2Fnews%2Fupdate-3113-bradley-mannings-statement-taking-responsibility-for-releasing-docs http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&safe=...
- breakall 14y agoInteresting 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?
- safeaim 14y agoIt's probably not that easy getting through the big tip inbox of such papers. Especially if you are not identifying yourself as a high-level official.
- saraid216 14y agoTo follow on from safeaim, I'd challenge you to get in contact with a reporter from either newspaper yourself. How would you go about it?
- breakall 14y agoBe famous, rich, powerful, or all of the above? Snark aside, I've occasionally exchanged brief emails with folks at newspapers -- an op/ed writer who wrote a particular column I liked, for example. With enough persistence, I think I could get through. If I really ran into a brick wall at the Post or the Times, I'd settle for the editor of a mid-size city paper.
- OGinparadise 14y agobut 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? Manning would have still been fried, but then NYT would not have released all of them wholesale. Some things just need to be kept secret but Wikileaks released them (lack of manpower was one issue)
- jellicle 14y agoSigh. Actually, everything released in the first large dump of Manning's stuff was vetted by.... wait for it... the New York Times. Which newspaper, along with the Guardian and Der Spiegel, broke the story on July 25, 2010. How quickly we forget. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_War_documents_leak http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_War_documents_leak
- marze 14y agoAbout time.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- cake 14y agoIt's funny to see how common the tools he uses are : Dell laptops, WinRAR, wget... You would think the army has some fancy tech, apparently not.
- tlrobinson 14y agoIt's amazing how many high profile "hacking" cases are essentially (or literally) "used wget to download unsecured information". aaronsw and weev come to mind.
- jonknee 14y agoThis information was secured, he just had the ability to use computers on the secure network. People will always be an attack vector, though the military certainly could have implemented more automated alerts on unusual activity.
- btilly 14y agoBased on his description, it was standard operating procedure to make multiple local copies of large amounts of data so that you'd have access to it when you needed it even if there were network problems later. In that case, his network activity may not have looked unusual.
- mpyne 14y agoFancier than what we get in the Navy. :(
- ok_craig 14y agoThe 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?
- jasonwatkinspdx 14y agoI'm very curious about this as well. It's the only topic he's not willing to disclose in a public statement, yet he states that the documents upset him a great deal. He's not even willing to mention the specific agency involved. That makes me think that disclosing this topic would create even worse charges than he already faces. So a reasonable guess is that these documents are actual compartmentalized information. But of course then the question is how he was able to access them given the impression I get is his office was rather low security, not a SCIF. It's hard not to think that there's a significant part of the story here that isn't being told.
- GHFigs 14y agoHe's not even willing to mention the specific agency involved. This is part of him pleading guilty to these charges, one of which is over "more than one classified memorandum from a government intelligence agency". It's not him personally being shifty about it--that's what the charge is. But of course then the question is how he was able to access them given the impression I get is his office was rather low security, not a SCIF. He refers to the "T-SCIF" many times in this statement, 'T' meaning 'Temporary'. There's even a photo in the chat logs published by Wired.
- jasonwatkinspdx 14y agoAh, thanks, I'd skipped over some of the more procedural parts of his statement. I'm surprised it was so easy for him to access and copy such material without detection. I guess if it appeared like it was in the course of his duties it wouldn't raise any alarms.
- grecy 14y agoInteresting there was no mention from him about how he was treated while incarcerated, or about being held for so long without charge/trial.
- sigzero 14y agoHis lawyer already did describe his confinement I believe. So there was probably no need. Not sure about the second part but maybe he is barred from that somehow.
- throw-away2 14y agoYou mean how he was held in protective custody (not solitary confinement, as is commonly and falsely claimed by idiots like Glenn Greenwald) because he has a history of mental instability (ie Gender Identity Disorder, punching another soldier) and the Army fears he's a suicide risk (which he probably is)?
- joering2 14y agoThrow - serious question. Is there any environment where someone could press you hard enough and long enough so that you would be a "suicide risk" ?
- throw-away2 14y agoCan either of you read? He was placed in protective custody because they feared he was a suicide risk.
- raverbashing 14y agoYes, keep telling yourself that You see, you are already answering things in a menacing tone, I think you may be a risk to others, and maybe to yourself.
- derrida 14y ago"protective custody". Right. Like if he were let out onto the streets on bail he would flee, or go on a murdering rampage. You are blaming the victim. The military is entirely responsible for the conditions he is held under in custody. That's part of what the word custody means. A UN Torture Investigator (Juan Mendez) concluded he was living in "inhumane and degrading conditions".
- mpyne 14y agoI think the thing I was most surprised about is that the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs were the very first thing Manning had uploaded to WikiLeaks, and this happened far before Manning had been given the order to determine what other anti-Maliki literature was being drummed up by the FP 15. 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. 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"). 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. 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." 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." 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 WWII, where the U.K. and the U.S. both enjoyed significant military advantages thanks to their signals intelligence and codebreaking feats. 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. 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, even though they couldn't break the code. (A good book to read regarding this is Ian Toll's "Pacific Crucible"). I suppose at least I can't say he was doing this to get back at the Army per se, since he'd done everything 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". I'm not really sure what to think about all of it. It seems to me that based on his very half-hearted 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). 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.
- porsupah 14y agoI am terribly, interminably indebted to Bradley Manning. I cannot possibly repay the debt of conscience he managed to summon up.
- ck2 14y agoYou 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. Any of us would say ANYTHING facing that. Anything. They are roasting him alive now, government has over 140 "witnesses" to put on the stand. They are going to make an example out of him, it's going to be horrible.
- jacquesm 14y agoJust that side of torture, imo.
- GHFigs 14y agoManning has not been held the conditions you're referring to since April of 2011. If you care about the case, please learn more about it.
- jacquesm 14y agoProbably you should clarify your statement a bit or you'll be downvoted a lot (upvoted you, but that's only one.) Anyway, what I find disgusting about the whole 'Manning' case is that vetting procedures should have never ever allowed this man to get even close to sensitive material, let alone top-secret. Burning him at the stake is just a way to assign blame when in reality every person that ever evaluated Mannings psychological profile had been asleep at the switch. The guy needs help, not punishment. The fact that we as a society depend on the Bradley Mannings of this world to keep us on the straight and narrow is what is really frightening.
- killerpopiller 14y agoWhistle blower are per se mentally ill, you claim? Or how come, you dismiss him as a fragile person? He had good intentions and good reasons, the cables are an eye opener. Sweeping and leaving those actions under the rug would be the right thing to do? It was the lowest clearance, btw.
- smutticus 14y ago50 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.
- jacquesm 14y agoJust 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. 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. 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. 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.
- grandalf 14y agoThe metaphor I like is that once a gang of criminal thugs gains enough power and wealth, it can afford to start white washing its own reputation... This is done by rewriting history. The idea that we have had wars about moral causes is 100% fals. The moral angle comes later once the victor gets the chance to tarnish his enemy forever in the history books.
- sneak 14y agoEveryone paying attention feels this way. The treatment of Manning and eventual treatment of Assange will be our generation's Vietnam - an active demonstration of our government's willingness to lie to and abuse us, a touchstone for all who are seeking a reason not to cooperate.
- bconway 14y agoThe treatment of Manning and eventual treatment of Assange will be our generation's Vietnam - an active demonstration of our government's willingness to lie to and abuse us, a touchstone for all who are seeking a reason not to cooperate. It would certainly be nice if that was the case. However, it's much more likely the average American doesn't know (or care) about Manning, other than the occasional footnote on the 10 o'clock news, and in a year or two he will be forgotten.
- Buzaga 14y ago>> The dehumanized the individuals they were engaging and seemed to not value human life by referring >> to them as quote “dead bastards” unquote and congratulating each other on the ability to kill in >> large numbers. At one point in the video there is an individual on the ground attempting to crawl >> to safety. The individual is seriously wounded. Instead of calling for medical attention to the >> location, one of the aerial weapons team crew members verbally asks for the wounded person to pick >> up a weapon so that he can have a reason to engage. For me, this seems similar to a child torturing >> ants with a magnifying glass. >> Shortly after the second engagement, a mechanized infantry unit arrives at the scene. Within >> minutes, the aerial weapons team crew learns that children were in the van and despite the >> injuries the crew exhibits no remorse. Instead, they downplay the significance of their actions, >> saying quote ‘Well, it’s their fault for bringing their kid’s into a battle’ unquote. >> The aerial weapons team crew members sound like they lack sympathy for the children or the >> parents. Later in a particularly disturbing manner, the aerial weapons team verbalizes enjoyment >> at the sight of one of the ground vehicles driving over a body– or one of the bodies. As I >> continued my research, I found an article discussing the book, The Good Soldiers, written by >> Washington Post writer David Finkel. >> He writes that the soldier finds him and sees him gesture with his two forefingers together, a >> common method in the Middle East to communicate that they are friendly. However, instead of >> assisting him, the soldier makes an obscene gesture extending his middle finger. >> The individual apparently dies shortly thereafter. Reading this, I can only think of how this >> person was simply trying to help others, and then he quickly finds he needs help as well. To make >> matter worse, in the last moments of his life, he continues to express his friendly gesture– only >> to find himself receiving this well known gesture of unfriendliness. For me it’s all a big mess, >> and I am left wondering what these things mean, and how it all fits together. It burdens me >> emotionally. 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 So many lies, fuck the power.