Bradley Manning Says He's Sorry

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Bradley Manning Says He's Sorry

Posted by timothy on Thursday August 15, 2013 @02:11AM from the may-I-have-another dept.

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?'""

28 of 496 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

I'd be sorry by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-15 02:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'd be sorry if you locked me in a box for years.
1. Re:I'd be sorry by dmbasso · 2013-08-15 02:26 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  [Spoiler alert] Last page of 1984.
  
  --
  `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
2. Re:I'd be sorry by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-15 03:03 · 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.
3. Re:I'd be sorry by Geste · 2013-08-15 03:19 · 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.
4. Re:I'd be sorry by sl4shd0rk · 2013-08-15 03:37 · 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.
  
  --
  Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
5. Re:I'd be sorry by Em+Adespoton · 2013-08-15 03:55 · 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."
6. Re:I'd be sorry by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-15 06:51 · 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
7. Re:I'd be sorry by Machtyn · 2013-08-15 08:31 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  No they don't. MSNBC has a horrific record of presenting its news in a biased and sometimes offensive manner.
  
  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.
8. Re:I'd be sorry by TheCarp · 2013-08-15 08:51 · 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.
  
  --
  "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
He's been broken on the wheel. by FreonTrip · 2013-08-15 02:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

What would YOU say if you'd been through what he has? Who can say if he's sincere? This is just another part of the dog and pony show. Keep fighting.
1. Re:He's been broken on the wheel. by Hatta · 2013-08-15 02:17 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  This apology carries no more weight than confessions extracted by torture. It's only purpose is to legtimize barbaric injustice. .
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
2. Re:He's been broken on the wheel. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-15 02:24 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It literally is an apology extracted by torture, as has been extensively documented.
3. Re:He's been broken on the wheel. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-15 02:54 · 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?
4. Re:He's been broken on the wheel. by meta-monkey · 2013-08-15 04:46 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Yes. Language no longer has meaning. It is Orwell's Politics and the English Language 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!
  
  --
  We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
You did change the world for the better! by AmiMoJo · 2013-08-15 02:14 · 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.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
1. Re:You did change the world for the better! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-15 02:26 · 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.
2. Re:You did change the world for the better! by Somebody+Is+Using+My · 2013-08-15 04:38 · 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.
I choose to believe by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-15 02:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

that he fell victim to the 5 dollar wrench.
Belief by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-15 02:15 · 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 by kevkingofthesea · 2013-08-15 02:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

Wrong and illegal are not always one and the same.
Ministry of truth by MadTinfoilHatter · 2013-08-15 02:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

After a few months in the basement of the ministry of truth he had finally learned to love Big Brother...
Even the smallest person can change the world by Gothmolly · 2013-08-15 02:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

It sucks that you're locked up buddy, but you did the right thing.

--
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Re:Not Quite by camperdave · 2013-08-15 02:25 · 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".

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Re:You break the law you go to jail by king+neckbeard · 2013-08-15 02:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

No, wrong and illegal are different sets. Hopefully, they have considerable overlap, but all things that are wrong certainly shouldn't be illegal, and there are things that are reasonably illegal that are not wrong. Now, whether or not what Manning did was wrong is a matter of opinion, but whether wrong and illegal are the same thing or not is not up for reasonable debate.

--
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Re:You break the law you go to jail by Notabadguy · 2013-08-15 02:32 · 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 by mjr167 · 2013-08-15 03:48 · 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.
He's been protected and served. by hoboroadie · 2013-08-15 04:01 · 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.

--
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
Re:You break the law you go to jail by davydagger · 2013-08-15 04:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

but if prostitution where legal, the amount of sex slaves would go down, and the government would be able to ensure protections for prostitutes, and make their living conditions better.

The reason they can be treated like sex slaves, is because they can't go to the cops to complain.