Bradley Manning Says He's Sorry 496
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "The Washington Post reports that Pfc. Bradley Manning told a military judge during his sentencing hearing that he is sorry he hurt the United States by leaking hundreds of thousands of sensitive military and diplomatic documents to the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks and he asked for leniency as he spoke for less than five minutes, often in a quavering voice "I'm sorry I hurt people. I'm sorry that I hurt the United States," said Manning, who was convicted last month of multiple crimes, including violations of the Espionage Act, for turning over the classified material. "I'm apologizing for the unintended consequences of my actions. I believed I was going to help people, not hurt people." Speaking publicly for only the third time since he was arrested in Iraq in June 2010, Manning said he had been naive. "I look back at my decisions and wonder, 'How on earth could I, a junior analyst, possibly believe I could change the world for the better over the decisions of those with the proper authority?'""
I'd be sorry (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd be sorry if you locked me in a box for years.
He's been broken on the wheel. (Score:5, Insightful)
You did change the world for the better! (Score:5, Insightful)
He is clearly just trying to show remorse and get a lighter sentence now. In any measurable way his actions have made the world a better place, no not resulted in any demonstrable harm (except what the US deserves for its actions).
Can't blame him when he could be facing the rest of his life in jail, but I don't believe him for a second.
I choose to believe (Score:5, Insightful)
that he fell victim to the 5 dollar wrench.
Not Quite (Score:4, Insightful)
He apologized for the result of his action, not his action.
Belief (Score:5, Insightful)
"I look back at my decisions and wonder, 'How on earth could I, a junior analyst, possibly believe I could change the world for the better over the decisions of those with the proper authority?'"
Because those with the authority weren't going to do anything for the betterment of the world.
Re:You break the law you go to jail (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong and illegal are not always one and the same.
Ministry of truth (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:He's been broken on the wheel. (Score:5, Insightful)
This apology carries no more weight than confessions extracted by torture. It's only purpose is to legtimize barbaric injustice. .
Re:You did change the world for the better! (Score:5, Insightful)
1. None of his detractors are ever really going to forgive him. They'd just take this as a sign they broke him and pat themselves on the back at a job well done. It vindicates their position, and makes them look better.
2. Its a slap in the face to his supporters. It makes them look like idiots, and traitors for supporting him, which is what its going to be used for in propaganda.
3. He's not going to get a lighter sentance.
Oh yeah, totally believable. (Score:4, Insightful)
So they "enhanced interrogation" and/or solitary'd him until he broke and said anything they want to make the pain stop, and we're totally supposed to think that his epiphany was due to suddenly remembering just how free we are and people-loving is our government?
Riiiiiiight.
*Fun fact my captcha there was "kneecap". How appropriate.
Re:Ministry of truth (Score:2, Insightful)
Sends chills down the spine, doesn't it?
Re:Belief (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. Those in authority care nothing for the betterment of the world. Only their own betterment, which is tied to the betterment of the rich and powerful.
Resistance to those with authority is the only way we are actually going to better the world.
Re:He's been broken on the wheel. (Score:5, Insightful)
It literally is an apology extracted by torture, as has been extensively documented.
Even the smallest person can change the world (Score:5, Insightful)
It sucks that you're locked up buddy, but you did the right thing.
Re:Not Quite (Score:5, Insightful)
"I look back at my decisions and wonder, 'How on earth could I, a junior analyst, possibly believe I could change the world for the better over the decisions of those with the proper authority?'"
That struck me as an apology for the action itself.
That struck me as a "they broke me", rather than an "I'm sorry".
Re:You did change the world for the better! (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree. The quote: 'How on earth could I, a junior analyst, possibly believe I could change the world for the better over the decisions of those with the proper authority?' sounds like Manning took the prosecution's argument and rephrased it in the first person. It sounds improbable with respect to sincerity.
How much more natural does it seem to imagine the prosecution (or the authorities in question) saying: 'How on earth could you, a junior analyst, possibly believe that you could change the world for the better over the decisions of those with the proper authority?'
It almost seems tongue in cheek to me.
Re:I'd be sorry (Score:5, Insightful)
[Spoiler alert] Last page of 1984.
Re:He's been broken on the wheel. (Score:4, Insightful)
2 + 2 = 5, 1984
Re:You break the law you go to jail (Score:5, Insightful)
Amazing! (Score:5, Insightful)
Torture has come so far in the last 200 years that when the defendant gets dragged into the court room, there isn't even visible evidence of Iron Maiden puncture marks, the flopping limbs that come from the rack, the rapid flinching from water boarding, or the glossy eyed stare from being subjected to countless hours of network TV.
Re:Oh yeah, totally believable. (Score:2, Insightful)
Or... he's just saying what his lawyers told him to say. I know, it's more fun to blame torture, though.
Greatest Hero (Score:3, Insightful)
Manning is a hero. The disclosures of the illegal activities of the illegal U.S.A. Government will reverberate for decades. It had to be done.
Mr. Manning ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Any action is going to have positive and negative consequences. The question is: does the good outweigh the bad?
It's probably too early to tell if your actions served the greater good.
On the other hand, what you did was important for your country: the United States is a representative democracy. In order for your government to work as intended, both the representatives and electorat must have information regarding both policies and how those policies are implemented. Without that information, decisions are ill informed (at best) and possibly even manipulated to serve the interests of the government, a particular branch of the government, or a small group of individuals (at worse).
Re:Ministry of truth (Score:4, Insightful)
It was the ministry of love. Ministry of truth is more like the NSA.
I still want to know why (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You break the law you go to jail (Score:5, Insightful)
So it's not wrong for your wife to lie to and cheat on you, since it's not illegal?
Bad analogy.
Better analogy: You're cheating on your wife. I tell your wife that you're cheating on her. Am I wrong?
Analogy +1: In this case, you're the government and the wife is the American people. As it happens, you've made a law that no one is allowed to disclose if you cheat on your wife.
Analogy +2: Our marriage contract says that you don't have the power to make that law.
So: You've broken our marriage contract by making a law stating that no one can tell anyone if you cheated on your wife. Then you cheated on your wife, breaking the covenant of marriage. Then you locked up the guy who tattled that you cheated on your wife.
Who's in the wrong here?
Re:You break the law you go to jail (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think you know what illegal means.
Re:Not Quite (Score:4, Insightful)
People forget that America was built by people who refused to question authority, people who knew their place, people who quietly did their part for their superiors and didn't waste time with foolish, liberal ideologies like, well liberty and equality.
Re:You break the law you go to jail (Score:4, Insightful)
In that case I'd really like to hear your views on slavery, segragation, and voting rights. I'd also like to know how you define things as right and wrong that are illegal in one state or nation but not another.
Re:Even the smallest person can change the world (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes, jeopardizing peoples lives, undercut long term diplomatic missions. That sure is the right thing.
Re:You did change the world for the better! (Score:1, Insightful)
Easy to say from the outside looking in huh?
Who was hurt? (Score:5, Insightful)
Did I miss something? Have we got actual examples of people who were hurt by this?
Re:You break the law you go to jail (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a matter of personal opinion. In general wrong and illegal are the same thing, because no one will be able to decide what is wrong unless it's defined that way.
No, it's a matter of fundamental morals. If you'd lived in nazi Germany, would you have ratted on a neighbour hiding Jews? Not doing so was illegal, but also the only right thing to do.
Equating illegal with wrong means you're uncritically accepting your government as the ultimate judge in ethical matters.
Re:Unintended Consequences (Score:4, Insightful)
Thing is, in international conflicts, lives are on the line every day. It's just whose lives are endangered that one side takes issue with.
Lives are also daily at stake in the more or less secret drone wars the US are waging around the world today. Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Jemen are some examples. Civilians get killed by US drone pilots fromthe other side of the planet.
I for one am happy the world is starting to get a look into US dealings in foreign affairs. Like hiw Norwegian wx-coos have been recruited by the US embassy in Oslo to spy on Norwegian citizens for the US.
No, the world clearly needs more Mannings' and Snowden's.
A little postscript: This time around it was the US that got busted, I'm hoping for similar leaks in the whole world. We need more transparancy.
Re:He's been broken on the wheel. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, he's a fucking pussy. To think I participated in a protest calling for his freedom from prosecution.
Man, the things you underwent for the sake of freedom. Were you not afraid to participate in a protest? What's year-long solitary confinement and torture, compared to the willingness to participate in a protest? What a fucking pussy.
So when are we going to see you pick up the ball he dropped?
Re:Amazing! (Score:4, Insightful)
Ridiculous. There doesn't need to be any torture. He's someone who is in his early 20s looking at the possibility of the rest of his life in a military prison. Like many younger people, he didn't think through the results of his "heroism".
To me his statement sounds incredibly insincere, but insincere or not, he's trying to ensure he actually has some non-grey hair on his head the next time he's a free man. This isn't a capitulation, it's grovelling for less jail time. If one of us was stupid enough to do what he did, we'd probably grovel the same way too. No torture required.
This statement doesn't mean anything other than he's throwing himself on the mercy of the court to see if they want to be soft on him for caving in. And who knows, maybe he actually did have a change of heart. There's a lot of things people do that they regret later, jail or not. I don't think he did, but it is possible.
Re:I'd be sorry (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'd be sorry (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the poster is asking you to consider the reasons that led to Manning's statement, rather than the actual words themselves.
Re:You did change the world for the better! (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, Fox News didn't say he was "probably gay". People that knew him, including his therapist did. Fox News just reported what they said. Nice try at shifting the blame, however.
Re:I'd be sorry (Score:5, Insightful)
After everything he has been through, I won't make too much of this. He's a very young guy with his own set of issues and he might not have exhibited the best judgment, but he gave us some invaluable presents that we would not have received otherwise.
No, Bradley, I am sorry. As your case slips from the headlines, your treatment in the hands of military prisons is not likely to improve. I indeed fear that 2 or 3 or 4 years from now your suicide may make the front page of the New York Times. Under the fold. I hope you can stay strong. You have my thanks.
Re:I'd be sorry (Score:5, Insightful)
I dunno. I think he has changed the world for the better over the decisions of those with the proper authority
Re:I'd be sorry (Score:5, Insightful)
so much abuse that he actually believes he was wrong
After seeing the authorized "tactics" in Abu Ghraib and Gitmo, one can only arrive at the conclusion that Manning has no idea what he believes anymore. His statement sounds like that of a man subjected to the same secret laws of justice that FISA stems from.
Re:You break the law you go to jail (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the more disturbing part of the GP is "no one will be able to decide what is wrong unless it's defined that way".
In other words people are incapable of making their own decisions. The Mayor of San Diego gets a pass for harassing women because he didn't get the appropriate training. No one told me it was wrong, so I assumed I could do it. It is the final and complete rejection of any kind of personal responsibility. It is not YOUR fault. You were just doing what you were told/trained to do and therefor the fault lies with whoever told/trained you.
Re:You did change the world for the better! (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, Fox News didn't say he was "probably gay".
Actually, GP never attributed that to Fox News. GP merely linked a story on Fox News. Would you have accused GP of trying to attribute that to CNN, MSNBC, BBC, or some other news agency if they'd chosen to link one of their stories instead?
Protip: If your first reaction to someone posting a link to a story on Fox News is a knee-jerk defense of Fox News, when nothing that that person said indicates they thought Fox News was just making shit up in that story, it really says something about your lack of confidence in the reporting abilities of Fox News.
Re:I'd be sorry (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope Manning hasn't suffered so much abuse that he actually believes he was wrong and that the "proper authority" is unquestionably correct.
He said this during his sentencing hearing, where "shows remorse" is one of the tick boxes on the form. The statement was written by his attorney, and then memorized and recited by Manning. There is no reason to believe it reflects his true beliefs.
Actually, it probably does reflect his true beliefs -- the wording is very lawyer-massaged.
"I'm apologizing for the unintended consequences of my actions. I believed I was going to help people, not hurt people."
-- He's sorry for any consequences he didn't intend, especially where it hurt US citizens. I can believe that.
"I look back at my decisions and wonder, 'How on earth could I, a junior analyst, possibly believe I could change the world for the better over the decisions of those with the proper authority?'"
-- Translation: "How on earth did I believe that just by releasing that info, I could overturn the decisions of those with the proper authority?" What he's saying here is not that proper authority was better suited to handling the information, but that he has been disillusioned that his course of action would cause them to change their ways. I can believe that too.
This can be done for every bit of his statement. Sure, it can be interpreted as "he has remorse for what he did and is a better, more educated and mature person now who sees the error of his ways" and the checkbox on his sentencing can be ticked. However, the wording is very precise in what it doesn't say. As such, his statement can also be summed up as "I did what I did, thought I could fix the system, and discovered that my chosen method wasn't successful. If I had the opportunity to do it again, I'd do it differently."
He's been protected and served. (Score:5, Insightful)
One lousy night of extra-judicial service by a half dozen L.A. County Sheriff's Deputies, and I caved. A rather craven, boot-licking moment that I am not too proud of. I didn't get the Rodney King-style beatdown that was scheduled for that morning's lull in business, but I was convinced to plead guilty to a crime that did not occur, so as to avoid the guaranteed five-year sentence in the State Penitentiary.
I'd suggest shuffling, shackled, down a mile of cement corridor, in paper slippers, before criticizing this guy.
Re: You break the law you go to jail (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd say that if he was a whistleblower, he'd have taken more care of what he did release, and tried to keep it "on-topic" for some abuses that he could validate were serious and needed to be focused on. He'd also have taken some interest in how they were presented. Presenting the video in question as "Collateral Murder" was frankly incendiary and not conducive to debate, and while he was not responsible for that presentation, Manning selected the outlet and controlled the flow of the data.
I think it would be safe to say that in any organization, there are individuals in there who have bad days, or who are catty or assholes. We're all that way sometimes. By simply dumping hundreds of cables out there, he didn't just expose possible illegal scenarios, he held the conduct of the State Department (for instance) up to a level of scrutiny that no individual would tolerate, and certainly could be detrimental to a department that is charged to work with groups or governments that individuals might find objectionable, but who those Foreign Service Officers have a duty to their elected leaders to try and do the best job they can do, and provide the most candid advice they can.
Re:You break the law you go to jail (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason they can be treated like sex slaves, is because they can't go to the cops to complain.
Re:Not Quite (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, the American Revolution was very much led from the top. Yes, there were Enlightenment values involved, but that was mostly because those were fashionable in the upper and middle classes at the time.
Let's be clear, the Revolution was more about self-determination and local rule than it was about "liberty" in any absolute sense. They simply wanted the same rights that you would have gotten in England at the time if you happened to live there.
Where I think that America succeeded where European nations (of that time) failed, was the understanding that men of ability did not have to be born of a particular class. You could be a "New Man" and make a name for yourself.
On the other hand, they also very much subscribed to the notion that if you could make it into that class without having to rely on aristocratic birth, you should have a right to rule over your family, and in a larger sense, over the country. In fact, you actually would have the duty to do so. That is why they very carefully moderated the ability for there to be pure popular expressions by having a Senate and an Electoral College.
The US was founded on a later interpretation of Republican Roman values. There was nothing purely egalitarian about those, although there was always the sense that it could lead to something more equitable IF the greater population could be educated and made responsible enough to take it seriously.
Re:You did change the world for the better! (Score:5, Insightful)
This.
The fault of any harm lays solely on the US government's shoulders.
If Manning had released all that information and all it revealed was that the US was handing out puppies and lollipops, there wouldn't be any harm. Unfortunately, the leaked information showed how underhanded the US government has been acting. Our nation has been revealed to be decidedly untrustworthy and hypocritically opposed to the very ideals it espouses. The harm isn't because Manning shed some light on these underhanded dealings, the harm comes from those dealings themselves!
Now, true, in realpolitik it is impossible for any country to behave with 100% nobility. But as is increasingly becoming obvious - thanks to people like Manning, Assange and Snowden - the United States has gone far beyond the needs of realpolitik and is heading towards cartoonish supervilliany. If the US government wants people - be it foreign nationals or their own citizens - and other nations to trust them, then maybe they should reform their own actions rather than attempt to tar and feather others for offering concrete evidence as to their misdeeds.
I remember growing up and reading about forced confessions in the USSR and being so proud as how this sort of thing doesn't happen in my country. Those days are long gone.
Re:He's been broken on the wheel. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. Language no longer has meaning. It is Orwell's Politics and the English Language [orwell.ru] come to life.
In Oldspeak, "we're not listening to your phone calls" meant "we're not listening to your phone calls." (excepting warrants, etc etc)
Today it means "No one is physically sitting at a desk with earphones that convert the mouth noises you make into variations in air pressure, but every phone call you make is being tracked, recorded, stored forever, parsed over by AI, converted into text to speech and should you utter the wrong syllables (for some value of 'wrong') the transcript will be read by everyone in the office and your permanent record will get a '+1 suspicious' tally." But fear not, Citizen! No one is "listening" to your phone calls!
Re:I'd be sorry (Score:5, Insightful)
I have always suspected it really had more to do with getting revenge over the military's policy towards homosexuals, etc. Of course those posts were down-modded, and I received many, many angry replies stating I was completely off base in claiming he was in any shape or form "gay" or "transgender". Well it turns out that he was diagnosed with whatever you call the whole "Gender Identity" thing where you think you're a girl even though you're not. So I've been vindicated- yes, he was upset over their policies (and understandably so, I find our military attitude highly offensive even today).
What on earth is wrong in your head? You aren't vindicated. Being diagnosed with issues over gender identity doesn't mean he "did it to get revenge over the military's policy towards homosexuals, etc."
Gender identity issues =/= homosexual, nor are they "transgender", but more importantly, you have no smoking gun as to his motivations.
Re:I'd be sorry (Score:5, Insightful)
"We might be worried about the wrong dystopia.... This is from the introduction of Neil Postman's excellent book "Amusing Ourselves to Death", on the dueling dystopian visions of George Orwell and Aldous Huxley:
Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley’s vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.
What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.
Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism.
Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance.
Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy.
As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny “failed to take into account man’s almost infinite capacity for distractions.” In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us." -Mike Lewinski
Re:I'd be sorry (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not saying FoxNews doesn't have its problems. I saw a graphic today that shows the problem very distinctly:
[image of Obama with a Pepsi]
1. CNN: President Obama appeals to Pepsi drinkers
2. FoxNews: President Obama declares war on Coca-Cola drinkers
3. MSNBC: In a few minutes, we'll cut to the President drinking the acceptable drink. Anyone who disagrees is racist!
4. BBC: The US has fired a drone missile on Pakistan.
Re:I'd be sorry (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree, so long as we are VERY SPECIFICALLY talking about tactical information. If he had leaked where there would be surveillance in the next day or week, where troops were moving, where they were intending to attack, where they were right that moment....then yes...absolutely. Hang the fucker for treason. Fine.
However, he didn't release anything even remotely like that. He released political documents and evidence of war crimes, ones which had already happened and gave no current, actionable tactical information.
There is no way I would condone ANY prohibition on information disclosure which covers up crimes against humanity or other wrongdoing by the military, even in time of war. Quite simply, if they break the rules of war, and commit crimes against humanity, they are not fighting a legal war, and no protections at all should apply to them; especially not secrecy.
Re:I'd be sorry (Score:4, Insightful)
It's only mind boggling if you belive such mockery and derision was ever genuine. Even when the US made noises about freedom, it's own cloak and dagger department toppled democratically elected governments left and right (mostly left) and installed its own puppet dictators in their place. It persecuted its own citizens for their political opinions, just like Soviet Union did. And since the latter no longer exists, there's no reason to pretend anymore.
Let this be a lesson to everyone: those who wave the flags rarely believe in or even look at what's in them. And that's what freedom ever was to United States: a meaningless sequence of letters to use as a tribal identifier, just like communism was for the Soviet Union. Talk is cheap, actions matter, and US had Joseph McCarthy at home and the CIA abroad.
tl;dr Business as usual.