An Open Letter about Pfc. Bradley Manning (Updated)
Chief of Staff of the US Army
101 Army Pentagon, Rm. 3E672
Washington DC 20310-0200
February 5, 2012
Dear General Raymond Odierno,
I would like to share my appreciation for your service to the United States. Without honorable and courageous individuals like yourself and those who serve with you, our nation would be left defenseless and unable to aid those in need of disaster relief. The brave soldiers who serve in our armed forces voluntarily face physical and mental peril, and these deeds should not go unnoticed. I am writing to call your attention to a particular act of unflinching patriotism that I believe should be rewarded.
Pfc. Bradley Manning has shown true courage at great cost to himself. Like all soldiers, he chose to serve knowing that he may die in combat, but he went above and beyond this duty by choosing to do what was right rather than what would make him popular. If the allegations that he leaked information to Wikileaks are true, he fulfilled his oath to protect and serve the citizens of the United States. Therefore, his actions should be celebrated just as we would recognize the deeds of any courageous service member.
There can be no doubt that the release of the “Collateral Murder” video, “Afghan War Diaries,” and Diplomatic Cables have provided evidence of wrongdoing. As I am sure you agree, criminals should be punished, and any incidence of unlawful behavior, even among members of the military, should be taken very seriously. Because of the United States’ involvement in foreign affairs, it is imperative that other nations view our representative organizations as law abiding. If servicemen and women are not held to a lawful standard and are not punished for their crimes, the high esteem in which we are held abroad will diminish.
The information released by Wikileaks and allegedly by Manning has provided the armed forces with an opportunity to prove that we are not a state of warmongers and that our soldiers are imbued with integrity and honor. If we are truly a nation built on a foundation of justice, our military should reflect this conviction, which is why I hope you will show appreciation for Pfc. Bradley Manning’s heroism by supporting his release and advocating that the charges against him be dropped. Failure to release Manning and to try those involved in criminal activity sends a message that we do not uphold the values we claim to share with our allies, and it fuels our enemies who seek to prove that we are hypocrites.
Patriots like you must certainly see how actions that infringe on the inalienable rights of citizens like Bradley Manning and that oppose our nation’s foundation of laws will weaken the United States. Therefore, I am certain you will choose to uphold our principles and values by supporting the patriotism of Bradley Manning. Thank you again for your continued service.
Respectfully,
Mary Keck
_____________________Updates________________________
Find this letter on the Huffington Post.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
s.l. rose
Ramona Grigg
Chauncey DeVega
markinjapan
Rebecca Sarwate
Christie's Corner
Salon.com
Comments
I can presume I am now on some list somewhere.
:-) /r
Its an imperfect world, and if Manning has probably been overdone as to the harm he did at this point, since people got the message being sent, you also can't have it as a general principle that people release information given to them under the conditions which he had it given to him, even as the Pentagon Papers case shows there is a flip side to that as to there needing to be more disclosure about the actual, as opposed to stated, reasoning of what it is our government does as it represents us overseas too. Russia and the PLA do not play by rules that are any different, and if we aren't pure enemies, we definitely have rivalries that if they aren't managed well, can end in the exchange of nuclear weapons or other things that would have nuclear like effects, as to the nature of the world that we live in, granted if that leads to a lot of tragedy too.
I believe the Nazis tried to excuse their behavior by claiming they were following orders. When a human with decent morals and the proper instincts understands that he or she cannot be ordered to violate those basic good principles that is in accord with the judgments at trials of the Nazis at the end of WWII. Humanity has no other basic defense against depravity and institutionalized criminality.
At first I thought you were kidding, but as I read your open letter I could see that you are not.
You seem to be saying that the decision on what information should be classified should be made not by government officials, but by PFCs or janitors or whoever else happens to be able to hack into the information. If this is not what you are saying . . . then what are you saying?
Rather than rewarding soldiers for bravery we can reward them for stealing information. Instead of the Medal of Honor we can hand out the Golden Keyboard, or whatever.
In other words, what you are saying that ordinary soldiers or janitors or whatever who observe obvious criminality by their superiors should not be able to inform the public that these horrors are going on and that anybody in a high enough executive position should be immune to charges of criminality. Great philosophy for slaves and people who are not offended by officials criminally abusing their positions.
But this post goes far beyond recommending forgiveness. It says that Manning's actions should be "celebrated." The idea is that on the one hand we tell people who have access to confidential information that they are legally obligated not to disclose it. While on the other hand we say "but if you do, that's great!"
That is simply stupid. We can't have it both ways. If the author of the post thinks that we shouldn't have any confidential information, fine, let her make that argument. But if she supports the concept of confidential military information, then you cannot honor someone who discloses the very information that he has sworn to keep confidential, and especially when massive amounts of information are simply scooped up and distributed.
For over 20 years I worked as a medical data analyst. During that time I handled confidential information involving hundreds of thousands of patients. No doubt a careful review of that information could have revealed cases of medical malpractice, insurance fraud, theft of services, illegal drug usage by patients, and many other wrongdoings. But the information was confidential and thus NOT mine to do with as I pleased. I did not even look at the information unless there was a legitimate reason to do so, and I sure as hell never gave it to anyone else or even talked about it -- not to my best friend, not to my wife, not to anyone. We did not even disclose the information to state or federal agencies unless we were legally required to do so.
This is what it means to work with confidential information, and I am baffled that some people just don't "get it."
I appreciate your respect for individual privacy, but do not see that as the same type of information allegedly disclosed by Pfc. Manning. What he observed were blatant war crimes, crimes by an institution, not an individual and that's not quite the same as giving away the results of someone's pap smear. The equivocation doesn't help your argument.
On the other hand, if you were aware of malpractice, insurance fraud and the like, you would be obligated to divulge that information so as to not obstruct justice.
And in the final analysis that's what's wrong with this case. You may not agree with his alleged decision, but look at the punishment meted out to him for releasing the truth versus the consequences for the criminals in the Collateral Murder video.
Instead your answer is that Manning had no right to reveal the crimes, but in so doing you reveal that your allegiance is not to citizens (as you claim in your poor analogy to medical consumers) whereas decent humans would agree he had no choice and that his actions were courageous and to be celebrated.
What he did demonstrates that there is still a soul residing deep inside the war machine after all. His actions put him at great personal risk, rewarded by the months of solitary confinement he was subjected to, and yet he has already won. We see with our own eyes how inhumane the American empire has become.
Lastly, lets keep in mind that he is only accused of these "crimes" and has yet to be proven guilty.
"If the author of the post thinks that we shouldn't have any confidential information, fine, let her make that argument."
I'm not advocating that we don't have any confidential information. This takes some acknowledgement of the complexity of the world we live in, which is missing from the perspective you've shared, Mish. Certainly some information shouldn't be known by everyone. For example, Valerie Plame's status shouldn't have been revealed. On the other hand, not all information should remain secret.
When an organization that represents the United States is guilty of war crimes, we the people should know about it. The military is supposed to be an arm of the people's government. We live in a democracy, right? The actions allegedly revealed by Manning were done by an institution that I (as a U.S. citizen) am obligated to scrutinize and hold accountable. How can I possible enact this important duty if I am left in the dark?
In a fantasy land where the military can be trusted to always do the right thing, I would agree with you, Mish. Let the people in power choose what is confidential and what is not. Unfortunately, we don't live in fantasy land. We live in reality, and our soldiers aren't always ordered to do the right thing.
Thankfully, Manning (if he did lead the information) was not so brainwashed during basic training to leave his integrity at the door. Yes, I think soldiers who recognize their duty to defend the constitution should be rewarded over those who blindly follow orders. It is nice to know that some who serve do not become mindless robots.
As for his "inalienable rights" he gave those up the minute he raised his right hand and took the oath to serve. There are reasons that there are special rules for those in the military. Manning put a black eye on those who serve with honor.
You have a lot more faith in the military than I do. I'm not so sure that anything would have been done if Manning had delivered the information to them, and clearly Manning didn't either, which is why he knew that there was only one way for the information to be made public: whistleblowing. It seems Manning was right seeing as the only person who has been punished thus far is the messenger and not the people who ordered or carried out the crimes.
@Baltimore: You said, "private bradley's actions endangered the lives american men and women in uniform, and the reform advocates battling oppressive dictatorial regimes who work with our government." Who has been harmed thus far as a result of what has been revealed by Wikileaks? I see no evidence that supports your claim. Additionally, are you concerned about the harm it does to the U.S. and to our soldiers when we violate human rights and murder civilians?
I'm not asking for "the laws we live by" to be ignored. In fact, I'm asking for the U.S. army to abide by them like the rest of us. We do not torture. We do not kill innocents or target civilians, and we hold criminals accountable for wrongdoing . . . or so I thought.
Let's say Manning did break the law or military law by leaking classified information. As Thoreau and MLK Jr advocated, sometimes it is necessary to break the law in order to uphold justice. If revealing war crimes makes the Bush or Obama administration look bad, I'm willing to take that risk. My allegiance is to the Constitution and to Human Rights, not to a political party or president.
As proof of the duplicity of her thinking, my guess is that Professor Keck would not have come close to posting this in her blog had Manning disclosed data that resulted in harm to one or more of her nearest and dearest. If this is not true, then I pity her family.
Manning, who, at times, was also known as “Breanna”, was similarly confused. As a homosexual in the morally ambiguous DADT atmosphere of military service, Manning was bewildered by his role in an environment where common sense, conviction, courage, and action rule. He was willing to send pictures of himself in dresses to his superiors in an apparent effort to avoid being posted to a combat zone. He was emotionally upset over a lecture he had received from his ex-boyfriend. He was confused over his gender. These were the most significant events in his life when he first contacted Adrian Lamo.
To conflate Manning’s alleged treason with the civil disobedience of Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, or Henry David Thoreau is ridiculous. To conflate the principles of justice and freedom for which these men advocated with the befuddled, hypersensitive, worldview of Manning is ludicrous as well. To believe that the administrations of our current president and that of his predecessor weren’t already as tarnished as they would ever be by our military actions before Manning’s alleged violations of trust betrays the overreaching that is present in this argument to justify his actions.
On the other hand, perhaps it is this kind of thinking that is necessary to justify a curriculum in gender studies. One can only hope that the author someday meets General Odierno; and that General Odierno channels General Patton during the course of this encounter.
UncleCri is always ready to leap to he defense of the establishment that has lied itself openly into unjustifiable and foolish wars murdering uselessly hundreds of thousands of people in order to secure oil for the voracious corporate controllers. The record is outstanding of the suicides of soldiers repeatedly sent into murderous forays for no reason with no hope to escape this vicious insanity. The USA is now declaring its defeats in the Middle East by withdrawing from Iraq and starting to pull out of Afghanistan leaving behind immensely corrupt and hated governments full of vicious thugs deeply involved in drugs and other criminally brutal activities. Why the hell wouldn't any sane reasonable person do everything in his power to avoid being inserted into this total vicious madness with no purpose at all except to enrich the corporative crooks that smashed the economies of the US and Europe and are trying to turn the USA into a third world country? To defend the secretive policies sponsoring this violent downfall of decency and justice and the principles in the US Constitution is close to being criminal itself.
Let's look at your muddled pseudo-response:
Paragraph 1: Your screed begins with a lot of noise and purports to offer a logical lesson for the good Professor.
Paragraph #2: Uncle then resorts to fear-mongering (harm to her nearest and dearest)--as if that would undermine the principle the prof advocates.
Paragraph #3: Mere speculation and irrelevant ad hominem (which is what I'd do if, like Uncle, I didn't have a principled position to advocate).
Paragraph #4: (my favorite)--take a look at that last tortured sentence. What is that supposed to mean? Since [they] already sucked, Manning wouldn't have done ____?
Further--x is "ridiculous," and y is "ludicrous." Why exactly? Uncle doesn't say; guess we'll have to take his word.
Paragraph #6: True to form, Uncle resorts to ad hominem, and then ends with a veiled threat.
In short, nothing like a cogent thought in there, and nothing coming close to answering the good Professor's argument.
Regardless of Pfc. Manning's motives (which we'll never know), the world is already a better place for what he has shown us, namely that US foreign policy is making us less safe and is betraying our values.
If Manning had accessed information related to specific incidents of criminal wrongdoing with the intent of reforming the organization, he could be more appropriately seen as "whistleblower." Unfortunately that didn't happen.
What he did was to hack the system so as to obtain an indiscriminate data dump consisting of hundreds of thousands of files, in clear violation of the policies and laws that he had sworn to uphold. As it turned out, some of the files contained information on what may be evidence of criminal wrongdoing. But he did not target that information, nor did he know in advance what he would even find. He then disclosed the data dump in its entirety without even knowing the content of what he was disclosing, again in violation of the policies and laws he had sworn to uphold.
This is the "hero," whose actions we are supposed to "celebrate."
But wait, there's more! On top of that General Odierno is supposed to advocate for our "hero," in effect undermining all of the policies and laws governing the handling of confidential information.
Prof. Keck writes: "I'm not advocating that we don't have any confidential information. This takes some acknowledgement of the complexity of the world we live in, which is missing from the perspective you've shared, Mish. Certainly some information shouldn't be known by everyone. For example, Valerie Plame's status shouldn't have been revealed. On the other hand, not all information should remain secret."
I agree that not all information should remain secret. But the issue is who can make that call. If everyone who works with confidential information can harvest it wholesale and disclose it at will with impunity, then in effect there is no such thing as confidential information. You can't have it both ways; it's either one way or the other.
I agree that the world is complex. But what I think you don't understand is that people who handle confidential information need to have clear standards in order to know what the expectations are. If you say "you can't disclose confidential information without authorization, and if you do you will be subject to criminal penalties. But if you do, and it turns out that some good comes from it, then that's Ok," you've created an impossible situation for an analyst. Can he disclose confidential information? Can he not? Who knows?
Another flaw in Mish's argument is the commitment to obedience. Since when do Americans operate under the perspective that we should always be obedient? Wasn't the U.S. formed in the first place because a group was not obedient to their tyrranical dictator? Didn't Rosa Parks and MLK Jr break the law because the very laws we had in the U.S. were unjust? Should Ellsberg have kept the truths leaked in the Pentagon Papers a secret? Would we be better off if he hadn't done what he felt was moral?
I'm not saying that there aren't times for obedience. If my dog doesn't sit when I tell her, she's not going to get a biscuit. But if you see a crime happening and you know nothing will be done to stop it, the moral thing to do is report the crime, especially if the criminal activity impacts the entire nation. . .
I think Howard Zinn puts it best: "Historically, the most terrible things -- war, genocide, and slavery -- have resulted not from disobedience, but from obedience."
Mish -- Does it matter to you WHAT was exposed? Is there ever a time when one can break the law?
The problem with your argument is that Manning could not have possibly know what he was releasing, including the videos you mention. With the amount of data he gave away he couldn't have physically read it all.
Also a PFC is not in a position to know what is information and what is disinformation. Do you know for a fact that all the documents that he released are "real" ? No you don't. It would surprise me if it turns out that Manning isn't releasing stuff that he was suppose to release so it would be found either knowingly or not. We are not in a position to know.
It's kind of like the drone that "crashed" that Iran won't give us back. Do you know that they are not going to reverse engineer a computer virus to allow us access to their computers?
Look at the bright side. You may be an unknowing accomplice in what the military is trying to do. You are adding to the belief that Manning did something wrong when he is doing exactly what he was told to do. Wow, you an agent of the US military. How does it feel?
It would be strangely convenient for Manning to have released just the right incriminating information. I'll concede that he may not have been certain about every single page that he (allegedly) leaked. Manning seemed to have trusted Wikileaks do the necessary vetting. Maybe he could have waited until he had a chance to carefully comb through the many pages, but when one comes across evidence of a crime, they may feel a sense of urgency. I'm sure the family of the civilians who were shot in the street appreciated getting answers (and hopefully justice) sooner rather than later. I know I would.
If the (incomplete) logs of Manning's conversations published on Wired can be trusted, it seems that Manning knew at least some of what he was revealing. He knew that it proved crimes were committed, and he released the information because:
(02:28:10 AM) Manning: i want people to see the truth… regardless of who they are… because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public
(02:28:10 AM) Lamo : I’m not here right now
(02:28:50 AM) Manning: if i knew then, what i knew now… kind of thing…
(02:29:31 AM) Manning: or maybe im just young, naive, and stupid…
(02:30:09 AM) Lamo: which do you think it is?
(02:30:29 AM) Manning: im hoping for the former
(02:30:53 AM) Manning: it cant be the latter
(02:31:06 AM) Manning: because if it is… were fucking screwed
(02:31:12 AM) Manning: (as a society)
(02:31:49 AM) Manning: and i dont want to believe that we’re screwed
It seems he was motivated because of his values and not because of some military/government chess game as you're hypothesizing.
As I mentioned before, for many years I had a job working with confidential medical information, so I approach the answer to that question from the perspective of an analyst who needs to have clear guidelines on how to handle such information.
The principles of handling confidential information are very simple:
1) you don't even look at such information unless you are authorized to do so, and there is a legitimate reason to do so. I would say that this is an absolute.
2) you don't disclose such information except to those who are also authorized to see it.
If in the process of working with confidential information you legitimately come across evidence of criminal activity, then you discuss that with someone else who is authorized to see the information, and has the ability to take action on it. If it turns out that the organization does take action on it, fine. If not, then you only disclose the information to the outside if the seriousness of the criminal activity is so severe that to not disclose it might itself constitute criminal activity.
If you do decide that the situation is so serious that not to disclose it would be a crime, then you disclose it in a manner that does the least damage to the principle of confidentiality. For example, if I came across evidence of murders being committed, I would find a senator or representative who would likely take action on that information. I wouldn't call Wikileaks or the local newspaper unless that literally was the only option left to me.
So yes, there is a time when you can break the law related to confidentiality, and that is when not breaking that law would constitute an even more serious offense.
If Manning had done things this way, he probably would not be sitting in the brig now, and if he were, he would have a very strong defense.
Imagine a Manning defense that went like this: "In the course of viewing confidential information that I was authorized to view, I came across evidence of murders and a possible conspiracy to cover them up. I notified my commanding officer, and waited for him to take some kind of action, but he did nothing. So I contacted Senator Smith's office and forwarded the information to them. Months passed, but again nothing happened. Having done all I could through normal channels I finally contacted Wikileaks because I didn't know what else to do, and because not to do anything would constitute an even greater offense."
Unfortunately, Manning did nothing right, and his current defense seems to be "I was confused and unhappy."
Yes, he didn't work through the army system. He didn't give the information to one of his senators. He didn't disclose just the tiny number of documents that were evidence of wrongdoing, choosing instead to release hundreds of thousands of files that had nothing to do with criminal activity. He did nothing to ensure that particularly sensitive information was redacted. Everything he did demonstrated a reckless attitude to the information that he had sworn to protect.
However, if you need to know what a curriculum in gender studies might involve, then please help yourself to Wikipedia.
It's official: "Your" an ass.
Chief of Staff of the US Army
101 Army Pentagon, Rm. 3E672
Washington DC 20310-0200
Dear Sir,
I write to you as an American Zen Buddhist priest, a prison / death row chaplain and an American citizen.
If indeed the allegations against Pfc. Bradley Manning are valid, irrespective of military law or any other law, this young man has served his country well above and beyond the call of duty. The WikiLeaks revelations have exposed the truth that the military and political leaders in this country are trying to hide from the citizens of this, our once great nation.
I have observed a steep decline in morals and ethics in our society over the years, and I am deeply troubled that the very individuals who are mandated to serve our nation have become so corrupt as to be unable to tell the truth to the very people they are obligated to protect. When this happens to a nation, the society becomes undermined by lies, deception and failure to speak the truth.
To not speak the truth about atrocities and corruption at this juncture in our nation's history is so grave an error as to be tantamount to treason.
If indeed the allegations against Pfc. Bradley Manning are valid, from a moral and ethical perspective he is to be considered a hero... those who stand against him will find themselves on the wrong side of history.
I fully support Pfc. Bradley Manning's nomination for the Nobel Peace prize.
May God save America from leaders blinded by corrupt and immoral views.
Sincerely,
Rev. Kobutsu Malone
Sedgwick, Maine USA