Chelsea Manning

Chelsea Manning

Private Chelsea E. Manning (born Bradley E. Manning) is the U.S. Army intelligence analyst who is suspected of disclosing more than 260,000 U.S. diplomatic cables, plus over 90,000 intelligence reports about the war in Afghanistan and a video of a military helicopter attack to the web site Wikileaks, a Web site that specializes in making secret information public. Wikileaks posted the war reports in August 2010, after sharing them with the New York Times and several other newspapers. Wikileaks began disclosing the thousands of U.S. diplomatic cables in late November, 2010. Private Manning served with the Second Brigade of the 10th Mountain Division in Baghdad. Private Manning disclosed a computer hacker named Adrian Lamo that she had taken the cables and other information, and Lamo reported Manning to the U.S. Government. Private Manning was subsequently arrested and charged with illegally distributing classified information. Her lengthy detention at military brigs under harsh circumstances drew harsh criticism of the Obama administration’s treatment of whistleblowers.

Personal Life

Manning was born Bradley Manning on December 17, 1987 in Crescent, Oklahoma. Her parents were Brian Manning, a former intelligence officer in the US Navy, and Susan Fox, a native of Wales. Her parents divorced in 2001, and Manning spent several years living with her mother in Wales. Growing up, she was often reclusive and the subject of ridicule from her peers. Her fascination with computers was apparent from a young age. She frequently questioned her gender and sexual identity during her teenage years. Manning also wrote to a gender councilor about considering sexual reassignment surgery.

Military Career

Manning enlisted in the Army in 2007. She went through basic training at Fort Leonard Wood in Missouri. However she was sent to the discharge unit only 6 weeks later. Fellow soldiers reported that she was constantly picked on, primarily due to rumors about her homosexuality.

However, the discharge was withdrawn and Manning was transferred to Fort Huachuaca in Arizona in 2008. At this time she began to receive advanced intelligence training. For the first time, Manning had access to classified information. Former classmates and instructors at Fort Huachuaca remembered him as a serious student but also noted the harassment she received at Fort Leonard Wood. In October, 2009 Manning was deployed to Forward Operating Base Hammer near Baghdad, Iraq. She was overwhelmed by the long hours and cramped working conditions. Screens showing an endless stream of war footage also had a profound affect on him. One of her tasks as an intelligence analyst was to assist the Iraqi police identify “suspects for detention.” At some point, she came across a group of men detained by the Iraqi police for spreading “anti-Iraqi” literature. In Manning’s opinion, the literature was not anything incendiary, but a well-reasoned critique of the Iraqi government. When Manning expressed her discomfort with the Iraqi police’s actions and American support, they were uninterested in these views. This helped to exacerbate Manning’s feelings of anger and isolation. The harassment began to take a toll on him and she became prone to violent outbursts, including an episode where she punched a female officer intelligence analyst in the face. The incident resulted in a demotion to Private First Class.

In the weeks leading up to Manning's arrest on May 27, 2010, an Army psychiatrist diagnosed her with an “occupational problem and adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct” and recommended discharge from the Army. Manning's commanding officer suspended her security clearance but did not discharge her.

Motivation for Leaking

In edited chat logs published by Wired.com, Manning described the incident which first made him seriously question U.S. government activities. Manning told Salon that she was instructed to work on a case of Iraqi "insurgents" who had been detained for distributing so-called insurgent literature. Manning took the literature in question and had it translated, only to discover that it was nothing more than "a scholarly critique against [Iraqi Prime Minister] Maliki." Manning wrote in a communication:

i had an interpreter read it for me ... and when i found out that it was a benign political critique titled "Where did the money go?" and following the corruption trail within the PM’s cabinet ... i immediately took that information and *ran* to the officer to explain what was going on ... he didn’t want to hear any of it... he told me to shut up and explain how we could assist the FPs in finding *MORE* detainees ... i had always questioned the things worked, and investigated to find the truth ... but that was a point where i was a *part* of something ... i was actively involved in something that i was completely against ...

Manning further explained (to Lamo) why she never considered selling this classified information she had obtained to a foreign nation for substantial profit or secretly transmitting it to foreign powers, as she easily could have done:

Manning: i mean what if i were someone more malicious-- i could've sold to russia or china, and made bank?

Lamo: why didn’t you?

Manning: because it's public data

Lamo: i mean, the cables

Manning: it belongs in the public domain -information should be free - it belongs in the public domain - because another state would just take advantage of the information… try and get some edge - if its out in the open… it should be a public good.

At Manning's court martial, her defense team has attempted to prove that she was not motivated by hatred of America or any type of malice. Instead, Manning's lawyer, David Coombs, stated that Manning was motivated by “humanist” desires to protect life, whether Iraqi or American. Instead, of being malicious, Manning was merely “young, naïve but good-intentioned.” Adrian Lammo, the hacker who turned Manning into the FBI following Manning’s confession to him that she was the source of the Wikileaks documents, testified at the court martial proceedings that Manning was a well-intentioned idealist.

The prosecution, led by Captain Joe Morrow in the court martial argued that Manning wanted to gain “notoriety,” and wanted to “aid our enemies.” The prosecutions claim of narcissism is supported by online chat logs from Manning which include statements such as "I just wanted to be nice, and live a normal life … but events kept forcing me to figure out ways to survive … smart enough to know whats going on, but helpless to do anything … no one took any notice of me." Other commentators have argued that Manning was motivated by mental instability stemming from her gender and sexual orientation crises. More serious are the accusations that Manning desired to provide “the enemy” with sensitive information that would harm American interests. The prosecution relied on Manning’s statements to Lammo, such as “If you had unprecedented access to classified networks 14 hours a day 7 days a week for 8+ months, what would you do?” to emphasize this point.

Relationship with Julian Assange and Wikileaks

The issue of Manning’s contact and interactions with Wikileaks founder Julian Assange became a major issue at Manning’s court martial. The prosecution alleged that as of November 29, 2009, a few weeks after Manning began work as an intelligence analyst in Iraq, she had obtained the personal phone number of Assange, who was living in Iceland at the time. The first piece of evidence sent by Manning to Assange is supposedly a video of US bomb strikes hitting Iraqi civilians. Captain Morrow of the prosecution also charged that Manning was responding to specific requests for information and email lists from Wikileaks and took part in editing the “Collateral Murder” video depicting a US Army helicopter killing civilians, including Reuters journalists.

The defense denied these allegations and argued that Manning did not take direction from Assange and Wikileaks. They argued that Manning’s did not decide to leak any information until late December 2009. They also stated that Manning did not take direction from Wikileaks, but acted alone after feeling horrified that fellow U.S. soldiers were cheering the fact that they had escaped a roadside bomb attack which seriously injured an Iraqi family of five.

Arrest and Charges

Manning was arrested on May 27th, 2010, at a base in eastern Iraq. Military authorities searched Manning'sa computer and found files containing downloaded communiques from the State Department and online chat logs with accounts believed to be associated with Wikileaks. She was initially charged in July, 2010. Those charges were supplemented on March 22, 2011 with 22 new charges. CBS Legal Analyst Andrew Cohen stated that these new charges indicated the government’s to “throw the book” at Manning and make an example out of him for other would-be leakers.

The 34 charges include:

• UCMJ 104 (Aiding the enemy): 1 count. This charge carries a potential for the death penalty but prosecutors have decided not to pursue it.
• UCMJ 92 (Failure to obey a lawful order or regulation): 9 counts. Mostly related to computers.
• Army Regulation 25-2, para. 4-6(k): Forbids transferring classified info to non-secure systems
• Army Regulation 25-2, para. 4-5(a)(3): Modifying or installing unauthorized software to a system, using it for 'unintended' purposes.
• Army Regulation 25-2, para. 4-5(a)(4): Circumventing security mechanisms
• Army Regulation 380-5: Improper storage of Classified Information
• UCMJ 134 (General article): 24 counts. Most of these counts incorporate civilian statutes from the United States Code:
• 18 U.S.C. § 641: Embezzlement and Theft of Public Money, Property or Records. The government has claimed that various sets of records that Manning transferred were 'things of value' and has thus charged him under this statute.
• 18 U.S.C. § 793(e): This is part of the Espionage Act. The law forbids 'unauthorized persons' from taking 'national defense' information and either 'retaining' it or delivering it to 'persons not entitled to receive it'. The terminology is rather complicated and often contested in court. 793(e) exists because the McCarran Internal Security Act of 1950 modified the original 1917 Espionage Act, partly because of the Alger Hiss/Pumpkin papers case. It is also the same law used against Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo in the Pentagon papers case.
• 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a) 1 & 2: These are from the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986. 1030(a)(1) is sometimes called the 'Computer Espionage' law as it borrows much of its language from the Espionage Act. It was modified by the USA Patriot Act of 2001, which added it to the 'Federal Crimes of Terrorism' list, as well as making it prosecutable under RICO (Racketeering) law.

Pre-Trial Detention and Allegations of Torture

After arrest in Iraq, Manning was transferred to Camp Arifjan in Kuwait. In Kuwait, Manning was subjected to difficult conditions. At a hearing to determine whether his pre-trial detention was enough punishment to merit dismissal of the charges, Manning claimed to have passed out because of the heat, was very distressed by not knowing what was going on in the outside world and began to contemplate suicide. She was in solitary confinement in an 8x8 cell and stated “I thought I was going to die.” After two months of interrogation, Manning was transferred to Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia, on July 29, 2010. The harsh conditions of detention increased for Manning at Quantico. Manning’s lawyer David Coombs described Manning’s conditions under Prevention of Injury Status as including extreme isolation and humiliation. She was required to be in a 6ft by 8ft cell 23 hours a day. She was not allowed to see the other prisoners and was allowed only a few hours of television and correspondence time a day. She was also required to strip down to boxer shorts while sleeping.

These conditions led to an international outcry and accusations of torture. Jesselyn Radack of The Daily Kos wrote that the military’s treatment of Manning amounted to torture because of five tactics they used: (1) isolation, (2) humiliation techniques, (3) sleep deprivation, (4) sensory deprivation, (5) stress positions.

In March 2012, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Juan Mendez reported to the UN General Assembly that Manning had been subject to "cruel and inhuman treatment" which may amount to torture, depending on the effect it had on Manning. Mendez conducted a 14 month investigation of the conditions of Manning’s detention and concluded that the solitary confinement under which she was held was a punitive measure. This is a violation of article 7 of the Convention Against Torture when imposed on a defendant who has yet to be convicted of any crime. Mendez claimed he was unable to conclude that Manning had been tortured because he was denied significant information about Manning’s condition. Mendez was told by the Pentagon that he could expect no privacy in his communications with Manning. Mendez claimed this deprivation of privacy was also an unacceptable violation of human rights. The Pentagon responded that solitary confinement of this nature was standard procedure for defendants awaiting trial and that the US was committed to upholding human rights.

Manning’s defense team attempted to have the charges against him dismissed by arguing that a pretrial detention was a violation of the Sixth Amendment, Rule of Court Martial 707 and Article 10 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice which demand a speedy trial. Under Rule of Court Martial 707, a trial must be held within 120 days. However, there certain extenuating circumstances, such as the need to prepare for a complex trial or to examine the mental health of the defendant, which can justify the postponement of a trial. Judge Col. Denise Lind ruled in February that Manning had not suffered an undue delay in waiting for the trial and allowed the prosecution to continue. However, she did rule that some of Manning's detention qualified as “pre-trial punishment” and awarded him a 112-day reduction in any sentence she will receive under Article 13 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Three Nobel Peace Prize recipients, Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, Mairead Maguire and Archbishop Desmond Tutu, co-authored an article in The Nation denounced the “cruel and inhuman treatment” inflicted upon Manning. While he did not admit that the government had tortured Manning, or even broken any standard of international or domestic law, former State Department spokesperson P.J. Crowley said that the government’s treatment of Manning was “counterproductive and stupid.” The comments, delivered to an Massachusetts Institute of Technology seminar, resulted in him being forced to resign. Amnesty International wrote a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates denouncing the conditions of Bradley Manning’s detention as “unnecessarily harsh and punitive” and in “breach the USA’s obligations under international standards and treaties.” The organization also called upon its members and the public to protest the Obama administration’s treatment of Manning.

Manning remained in solitary confinement at Quantico until she was moved to Fort Levanworth, Kansas in response to the protest over her conditions. Pentagon General Council Jeh Johnson stated that Manning’s transfer to Leavenworth is not an admission of the harsh conditions at Quantico or a reaction to the protests. Rather, it is merely because Quantico is not designated to hold court martial defendants for as long as Manning was detained there. Undersecretary of the Army Joe Westphal described the new benefits Manning would experience at Leavenworth, stating "It's more open. He's got more space, more ability to interact with other prisoners. He will eat with them."

Court Martial Proceedings

Manning’s court martial began on June 3, 2013 in Fort Meade, Maryland. She spent a total of 1120 days in detention before the beginning of the trial. The judge in the case is Col. Denise Lind, chief judge, 1st Judicial Circuit, U.S. Army Trial Judiciary. She has served in the Army Judge Advocate General's Corps for 25 years, including 4 years as a military judge in Europe, Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan, and Washington, DC. She is also a lecturer of law at The George Washington University Law School.

The prosecution is led by Army Capt. Joe Morrow. The defense is led by David E. Coombs, who is a lawyer in private practice specializing in court martial defense. He is former lawyer in the Judge Advocate General corps and a former military judge. He is also a current Lieutenant Colonel in the Army Reserve.

During the first week of the court martial proceedings, the defense called Adrian Lamo to the witness stand. While reviewing his chat logs with Manning, the defense attempted to draw parallels between the two young hackers and argued that Manning was only trying to serve the public good.

Manning has admitted responsibility for the leaks but disputes the accused reasons for the leaks as well as the content and timeline of the leaks. She denies being the source of a "Global Address List" of contact information for 74,000 troops stationed in Iraq. Manning also claims the government is incorrectly stating the release date of a video from Afghanistan which allegedly shows US soldiers killing civilians. During the second week of the court martial, these claims were implicated in a dispute over the admissibility of two Wikileaks tweets supposedly confirming the government’s version of the content and timeline of the leaks. Manning’s council attempted to have the tweets excluded as impermissible hearsay but Jude Lind ruled them admissible for identification purposes.

Secrecy is a prevailing theme of the proceedings. A large portion of the trial has been closed to the public for national security reasons. Transcripts and court documents are also heavily redacted. Photographers have been blocked from taking clear pictures of Manning and her supporters have been forced to turn their T-shirts inside out.

Press access was also severely restricted. 350 news organizations applied for press credentials. However only 80 were distributed and only 10 of those were allowed inside the court room for fire hazard concerns. The military did not plan to provide any records of the proceedings and no electronic recording devices were allowed in the court room. Therefore, the Freedom of the Press Foundation raised money for a private stenographer to enter the court room and make a record of the proceeding available to the public. The stenographer was denied access for several days before Judge Lind relented and allowed access with press passes donated by The Verge, Forbes and the Guardian. Manning's lawyer David Coombs stated it was a victory for his client's Sixth Amendment right to a public trial.

In a New York Times op-ed piece, Floyd Abrams and Yochai Benkler came together to argue against the dangerous precedent being set by the government’s arguments against Manning in her court martial for future whistleblowers. They stated, “the extreme charges remaining in this case create a severe threat to future whistle-blowers, even when their revelations are crystal-clear instances of whistle-blowing. We cannot allow our concerns about terrorism to turn us into a country where communicating with the press can be prosecuted as a capital offense.”

Supporters

Media Pundits and Commentary

Glenn Greenwald wrote for Salon that critics of Manning, who call him reckless and distinguishable from the Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg, fail to note that Ellsberg is one of Manning’s most vocal supporters. He also argued that Ellsberg’s leaks mostly contained Top Secret documents while none of Manning’s documents carried that classification. He adds that the content of the leaks were largely the same, stating “While the Pentagon Papers exposed the lies from American leaders regarding the Vietnam War, the WikiLeaks disclosures have done exactly the same with regard to the Iraq War, the war in Afghanistan, and a whole litany of other critical events.” Comparing the motivations of the two leakers, he says both Ellsberg and Manning were motivated by altruistic motives to inform the American public. He attacks those who supported Ellsberg and condemn Manning, such as President Obama, as “cowards” and “incoherent at best.”

Former Army Colonel and US diplomat Ann Wright called Manning “a brave and altruistic soldier.” She claimed “that threatening someone with charges of treason for wanting to give the public real facts about U.S. initiated foreign conflicts will substantially damage our country's image in the eyes of the world.” She called upon the military to stop treating Manning like a criminal and argued that “taken in total, Pfc Manning’s actions aided America, not our enemies.”

Yochai Benkler, a Harvard Law School professor, “has argued that Private Manning and Mr. Ellsberg (himself a Manning supporter) played a similar public role, that WikiLeaks behaved reasonably under the circumstances and that the revelations, including American forces’ complicity in abuses by Iraqi allies, understatement of civilian casualties and abuses by contractors deserve recognition, not criticism.”

Campaigns

The Movement of the Icelandic Parliament, an Icelandic political party, nominated Manning for the Nobel Peace Prize on February 1, 2012. A letter sent by the Movement to the Nobel nominating committee argued that the cables leaked by Manning “have fueled democratic uprising around the world, including a democratic revolution in Tunisia.” The letter also asserted that Manning’s actions led to a worldwide discussion about the imperialistic aims of the American government.

"I Am Bradley Manning" is an internet campaign which makes videos and runs a website supporting the release of Manning. The videos feature celebrities proclaiming “I Am Bradley Manning” and features actress Maggie Gyllenhaal, comedian Russel Brand, director Oliver Stone, Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, and rights activist Dan Choi.

The Bradley Manning Support Network is a campaign affiliated with the Oakland, California-based NGO Courage to Resist. It aims at raising awareness and funding for Manning’s defense. The campaign maintains a website which tells the history of Bradley Manning and has a news section on continuing developments. As of July, 2013, “over 20,447 individuals have donated a total of $1,289,972 to the defense fund, while an additional 809 supporters (including WikiLeaks) have given $58,209 to Bradley's legal trust account.” The campaign is led by an advisory board that includes:

• Medea Benjamin, Code Pink: Women for Peace
• Dr. Marsha Coleman-Adebayo, board member for the National Whistleblower Center
• Daniel Ellsberg, Pentagon Papers whistleblower
• Kathleen Gilberd, Co-Chair of the Military Law Task Force of the National Lawyers Guild
• Mike Gravel, former United States Senator (D-AK)
• Kimber Heinz, War Resisters League
• Birgitta Jónsdóttir, Member of the Icelandic Parliament
• Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst and activist
• Michael Moore, documentary filmmaker, author and activist
• Jose Vasquez, Iraq Veterans against the War
• Ann Wright, US Army Colonel (retired)

Criticism

US Government

President Barack Obama strongly criticized the release of the Cablegate documents by Wikileaks and has displayed strong contempt for Manning since her arrest. On April 21, 2011, President Obama stated, “If I was to release stuff, information that I’m not authorized to release, I’m breaking the law. … We’re a nation of laws. We don’t individually make our own decisions about how the laws operate. … He broke the law.” Obama was widely criticized for making the conclusory statement that Manning “broke the law.” Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice and military law expert, stated “Commenting on Manning’s conditions of confinement is one thing — I would have strongly advised him to not comment about Manning’s guilt.” Ann Clwyd, chairwoman of the all party parliamentary group on human rights, claimed that Obama may have prejudiced the trial by making that statement.

Hillary Clinton served as Secretary of State at the time of the Cablegate leaks and strongly denounced them as dangerous and counterproductive. She stated, “"I think that in an age where so much information is flying through cyberspace, we all have to be aware of the fact that some information which is sensitive, which does affect the security of individuals and relationships, deserves to be protected and we will continue to take necessary steps to do so." She came under criticism for an article in Vanity Fair in which she reportedly “told staff that she could not fathom how an army private, Bradley Manning, with psychological problems and a drag-queen boyfriend could single-handedly cause the United States unprecedented embarrassment just by labeling massive downloads as Lady Gaga songs.” This comment was seen as insensitive by the LGBTQ community. Manning has strong support in LGBTQ communities across the country. In the 2013 San Francisco Pride Parade, a large contingent represented Bradley Manning, including Daniel Ellsberg. The group held up a sign calling Manning a “gay hero.”

Media Pundits and Commentary

In a New York Times piece, Floyd Abrams, who represented The New York Times in the Pentagon Papers case, states that “both Daniel Ellsberg, who provided the documents to the newspaper, and The Times acted with far more restraint and responsibility than Private Manning and WikiLeaks have, and that both have repeatedly behaved with a devil-may-care obliviousness to genuine national security interests.”

Todd Gitlin stated that Manning’s actions would likely make it more difficult for diplomats to do their jobs and will increase the probabilities of armed conflict as a result. Gitlin also contrasts the release of the Iraq and Afghanistan War Logs and the Pentagon Papers by stating that the latter was “a historical book” that resulted in no new knowledge gained by the enemy in Vietnam. On the other hand, the Cablegate documents were a “huge data dump, including the names of agents and recent diplomatic cables” and were therefore “indiscriminate.”

Larry Womack, founder of 1405 Media and former editor at the Huffington Post, criticized the Cablegate leaker by writing, “Manning didn't identify a misdoing and blow a whistle, you see. He got angry and acted out…The known facts about Manning paint the private not as a calculating villain or heroic whistleblower, but as an angry kid lashing out. The right's terrorist mastermind and the left's darling hero was a disturbed kid who could barely function in day-to-day life.”

Blogging for Foreign Policy, journalist Thomas E. Ricks wrote, “I opposed what Manning did. I thought his actions were reckless. He did a data dump, making secret information public without knowing what it was or what he was really doing. Manning's act was that of a goofball anarchist.”

Sourcewatch resources

• Wikileaks

External resources

• CourageToResist.org, a Bradley Manning Defense Fund
• StandWithBrad.org, a defense fund and portal to support Bradley Manning and advance the issue of government transparency.
• Max Abbott Harsh Treament of Wikileaks' Bradley Manning Prompts Firing, PRWatch.org, March 23, 2011