tragic.
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Shelley <[email protected]> wrote: > Outrageous. > > http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/21/bradley-manning-sentence-birgitta-jonsdottir > > Bradley Manning's sentence: 35 years for exposing us to the truth > This was never a fair trial – Obama declared Manning's guilt in advance. But > Manning's punishment is an affront to democracy > > Birgitta Jónsdóttir > theguardian.com, Wednesday 21 August 2013 10.29 EDT > Jump to comments (…) > > Link to video: Bradley Manning: 35 years in jail for an outsider who had > trouble fitting in – video > > As of today, Wednesday 21 August 2013, Bradley Manning has served 1,182 days > in prison. He should be released with a sentence of time served. Instead, > the judge in his court martial at Fort Meade, Maryland has handed down a > sentence of 35 years. > > Of course, a humane, reasonable sentence of time served was never going to > happen. This trial has, since day one, been held in a kangaroo court. That > is not angry rhetoric; the reason I am forced to frame it in that way is > because President Obama made the following statements on record, before the > trial even started: > > President Obama: We're a nation of laws. We don't individually make our own > decisions about how the laws operate … He broke the law. > > Logan Price: Well, you can make the law harder to break, but what he did was > tell us the truth. > > President Obama: Well, what he did was he dumped … > > Logan Price: But Nixon tried to prosecute Daniel Ellsberg for the same thing > and he is a … [hero] > > President Obama: No, it isn't the same thing … What Ellsberg released wasn't > classified in the same way. > > When the president says that the Ellsberg's material was classified in a > different way, he seems to be unaware that there was a higher classification > on the documents Ellsberg leaked. > > A fair trial, then, has never been part of the picture. Despite being a > professor in constitutional law, the president as commander-in-chief of the > US military – and Manning has been tried in a court martial – declared > Manning's guilt pre-emptively. Here is what the Pentagon Papers leaker > Daniel Ellsberg had to say about this, in an interview with Amy Goodman at > DemocracyNow! in 2011: > > Well, nearly everything the president has said represents a confusion about > the state of the law and his own responsibilities. Everyone is focused, I > think, on the fact that his commander-in-chief has virtually given a > directed verdict to his subsequent jurors, who will all be his subordinates > in deciding the guilt in the trial of Bradley Manning. He's told them > already that their commander, on whom their whole career depends, regards > him [Manning] as guilty and that they can disagree with that only at their > peril. In career terms, it's clearly enough grounds for a dismissal of the > charges, just as my trial was dismissed eventually for governmental > misconduct. > > But what people haven't really focused on, I think, is another problematic > aspect of what he said. He not only was identifying Bradley Manning as the > source of the crime, but he was assuming, without any question, that a crime > has been committed. > > This alone should have been cause for the judge in the case to rethink > prosecutors' demand for 60 years in prison. Manning himself has shown > throughout the trial both that he is a humanitarian and that he is willing > to serve time for his actions. We have to look at his acts in light of his > moral compass, not any political agenda. > Manning intentions were never to hurt anyone; in fact, his motivation – as > was the case for Ellsberg – was to inform the American public about what > their government was doing in their name. A defense forensic psychiatrist > testified to Manning's motives: > > Well, Pfc Manning was under the impression that his leaked information was > going to really change how the world views the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, > and future wars, actually. This was an attempt to crowdsource an analysis of > the war, and it was his opinion that if … through crowdsourcing, enough > analysis was done on these documents, which he felt to be very important, > that it would lead to a greater good … that society as a whole would come to > the conclusion that the war wasn't worth it … that really no wars are worth > it. > > I admit that I share the same hopes that drove Manning to share with the > rest of the world the crimes of war he witnessed. I am deeply disappointed > that no one has been held accountable for the criminality exposed in the > documents for which Manning is standing trial – except him. It shows so > clearly that our justice systems are not working as intended to protect the > general public and to hold accountable those responsible for unspeakable > crimes. > > I want to thank Bradley Manning for the service he has done for humanity > with his courage and compassionate action to inform us, so that we have the > means to transform and change our societies for the better. I want to thank > him for shining light into the shadows. It is up to each and everyone of us > to use the information he provided for the greater good. I want to thank him > for making our world a little better. This is why I nominated him for the > Nobel Peace Prize, for there are very few individuals who have ever brought > about the kind of social change Manning has put in motion. > > The wave of demands for greater transparency, more accountability, and > democratic reform originate with Manning's lonely act in the barracks in > Iraq. He has given others – such as Edward Snowden – the courage to do the > right thing for the rest of us. The heavy hand dealt Bradley Manning today > is a massive blow against everything many of us hold sacred – at a time when > we have been shown how fragile and weak our democracies are by the > revelations of, first, Manning, and now, Snowden. > > There is no such thing as privacy anymore; nor is there such a thing as > accountability among our public servants. Our governments do not function > for the benefit of the 99%. If Manning had received a fair sentence that was > in proportion to his supposed crime – which was to expose us to the truth – > then there would have been hope. > > Instead, we are seeing the state acting like a wounded tiger, cornered and > lashing out in rage – attacking the person who speaks the truth in order to > frighten the rest of us into silence. But to that, I have only one answer: > it won't work. > > > -- > Liberationtech is a public list whose archives are searchable on Google. > Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, > change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at > [email protected]. -- Liberationtech is a public list whose archives are searchable on Google. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at [email protected].
