Slashdot Mirror


Bradley Manning Says He's Sorry

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?'""

46 of 496 comments (clear)

  1. I'd be sorry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'd be sorry if you locked me in a box for years.

    1. Re:I'd be sorry by dmbasso · · Score: 5, Insightful

      [Spoiler alert] Last page of 1984.

      --
      `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
    2. Re:I'd be sorry by no-body · · Score: 5, Interesting

      [Spoiler alert] Last page of 1984.

      That ?

      You believe that reality is something objective, external, existing in its own right. ... Do you remember, [O'Brien] went on, writing in your diary, 'Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two makes four'?
      Yes, said Winston.
      O'Brien held up his left hand, its back toward Winston, with the thumb hidden and the four fingers extended. How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?
      Four.
      And if the Party says that it is not four but five--then how many?
      Four.
      ....
      Five

    3. Re:I'd be sorry by TheCarp · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That wasn't the last page. I know that wasn't the last page because the last pages of that book haunted me for weeks after I read them. Its probably one of the most emotionally disturbing bits of fiction that I have ever read. Just thinking of the last few words of that book sends shudders down my spine now.

      This particular scene however, I have trouble not replacing Winston and O'Brien with the TNG version of this exact scene. "There are FOUR lights!"

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    4. Re:I'd be sorry by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    5. Re:I'd be sorry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      “Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.”

    6. Re:I'd be sorry by Geste · · 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.

    7. Re:I'd be sorry by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    8. Re:I'd be sorry by TheNarrator · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, it's more like Nikolai Bukharin's hysterical personal letter to Stalin on the eve of his execution:

      For example:

      ...
      5) My heart boils over when I think that you might believe that I am guilty of these crimes and that in your heart of hearts you think that I am really guilty of all of these horrors. My head is giddy with confusion, and I feel like yelling at the top of my voice. I feel like pounding my head against the wall. What am I to do? What am I to do? ...

    9. Re:I'd be sorry by sl4shd0rk · · 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!
    10. Re:I'd be sorry by Em+Adespoton · · 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."

    11. Re:I'd be sorry by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Has anyone NOT read 1984 by now? I'm pretty sure it was required reading at high school in the UK for a while.

      If anyone hasn't read it, they should do so. Right now. It is the book most relevant to the times in which we live. Spoilers follow. The parallels are just terrifying:

      • We have total surveillance of all people. Heck, think about laptops and smart TVs. Are you sure the NSA can't turn on their webcams and microphones remotely, a la telescreens?
      • We have a Winston equivalent breaking down and saying how much he loves the government and how amazed he is that he could have ever doubted their greatness.
      • We have the government torturing or executing anyone who disagrees with them.
      • We are in a state of perpetual war against regions of the world that somehow suddenly shift yet somehow stay the same (one day Afghanistan, the next day Iraq, then Iran, etc).
      • Until recently bin Laden was the target of the "5 minutes hate". Though I guess these days there's no equivalent. The analogy is a little rough because in the book Emmanuel Goldstein (?) was a terrorist figure entirely manufactured by Big Brother to attract and flush out rebels. In reality no such person existed. bin Laden surely existed, although he did once work for the CIA itself until the US no longer needed him. So in a rough sense he was "made" by US policies.

      Of course, there are things that don't apply too. In 1984 the government exercised absolute control over information, as the Soviet Union did (which is what inspired the book). Goldstein could be manufactured out of nothing because Big Brother controlled all access to information and had perfect propaganda in place. I am very skeptical such a thing does or could exist today. Our Big Brother equivalents hide information obsessively but they know they can't actually control it once out, nor can they rewrite history. If the internet had not happened or had evolved in a different way (like in China) then this part might also have come true, but so far in the west I believe we have a pretty good idea of what's truth vs fiction - we might be missing information but we are not widely believing propaganda. Well, except for idiots who have an instinctive need to "belong to a team" in which case they choose to believe propaganda even though disproving it is trivial. But that's a different problem than the people in 1984 had.

    12. Re:I'd be sorry by Anonymous Coward · · 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

    13. Re:I'd be sorry by Machtyn · · 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.

    14. Re:I'd be sorry by TheCarp · · 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"
  2. He's been broken on the wheel. by FreonTrip · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, I supported him by making posts on both Reddit *and* Tumblr! I feel he has so betrayed me personally after all I've done in the name of freedom.

    5. Re:He's been broken on the wheel. by meta-monkey · · 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.
  3. You did change the world for the better! by AmiMoJo · · 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 · · 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 MrLint · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm not a detractor and I think hes been broken. Ceding to the 'chain of command' to disavow bad action by the organization is one of the ways fascism grows unchecked.

    3. Re: You did change the world for the better! by ceoyoyo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Sounds like outright sarcasm to me. Last refuge of the tortured.

    4. Re:You did change the world for the better! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Interesting

      How well did WikiLeaks try to protect the innocent people caught up in all of this mess?

      Pretty well. They offered to work with the US Government, and let the US review any material prior to release, to ensure no lives were endangered. The US refused the offer.

      How well did the American Government try to protect the innocent people caught up in all of this mess? Not at all.

    5. Re:You did change the world for the better! by Somebody+Is+Using+My · · 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.

  4. I choose to believe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    that he fell victim to the 5 dollar wrench.

    1. Re:I choose to believe by wbr1 · · Score: 5, Funny

      This is the U.S. Military and government. That wrench probably cost $5000.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
  5. Belief by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  6. Re:You break the law you go to jail by kevkingofthesea · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wrong and illegal are not always one and the same.

  7. Ministry of truth by MadTinfoilHatter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    After a few months in the basement of the ministry of truth he had finally learned to love Big Brother...

  8. Even the smallest person can change the world by Gothmolly · · 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.
  9. Re:Not Quite by camperdave · · 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!
  10. Re:You break the law you go to jail by king+neckbeard · · 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.
  11. Re:You break the law you go to jail by Notabadguy · · 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?

  12. Damn. by stewsters · · Score: 5, Informative

    He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.

  13. Re:You break the law you go to jail by SecurityTheatre · · Score: 5, Informative

    Have you ever heard of the crime "structuring"? If you haven't let me give you a little summary.

    See, a long time ago, for a variety of reasons, some probably legitimate, many probably not, the government made the sale and possession of drugs illegal (including alcohol, at first). In order to maintain illegal businesses, a number of various types of organized crime arose. In response to this, the IRS was given sweeping powers to strike at individuals regarding their assets and income. A set of laws was put in place to give them this power and now, lying to the government about the source and value of your personal income was illegal.

    As a result, organized crime businesses needed to find means of distributing cash without records, hence "money laundering". Often using a business, such as a laundromat to direct money elsewhere, criminals could distribute their cash. As a result, a series of new laws were created to prevent the distribution of cash to businesses, including sweeping NEW laws enabling the government to snoop in private company's records.

    Moving on, the crime bosses began to launder money internationally. This usually involved briefcases full of cash. As a result, some western countries enacted regulations on the amount of cash one could carry over the border. Today, anything over $10,000 in cash must be declared and will usually be subject to investigation as to the source.

    But deciding this wasn't sufficient, in the 1980s, a new law was created, called "structuring". This law essentially prevents you from carrying the sum of $10,000 over the border over the course of multiple trips. This law simply states that you may not circumvent arbitrary controls, such as currency limits, by conducting your activities in such a way as to avoid them.

    As the result of a law to prohibit the structuring of activities to avoid the law to prevent the carrying of cash, which itself is to avoid the law of domestic money laundering, which itself is to avoid the law of revenue auditability, which itself is set up to prevent those who started a business based on that which is of questionable ethics (selling prohibited substances).

    Illegal does not always equal wrong.

  14. Re:You break the law you go to jail by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Informative

    That's a matter of personal opinion.

    No, it's not.

    I think Martin Luther King, Jr. said it best:

    "Always remember - everything Hitler did in Germany was legal."

    No, that's not a Godwin, because I'm not calling you a Nazi.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  15. Re:Not Quite by gl4ss · · Score: 5, Interesting

    it sounds more like "I was naive to think that doing the right thing would change anything for the better".

    like, that it was naive to think that anyone would flinch and any war criminals would get what's coming to them... naive to think that exposing any crimes would put a stop to them, naive that those in authority would do jack shit about them.

    even then, it's unlikely that he got to say whatever he wanted anyways.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  16. Calling The Pentagon a Liar? by Bob9113 · · Score: 5, Informative

    "I'm sorry I hurt people. I'm sorry that I hurt the United States," said Manning

    Is this sonofabitch calling the Pentagon a liar? How dare he! The Pentagon investigated and clearly reported that the Wikileaks leak did not pose a threat.

    DoD Says Wikileaks Not a Threat

    The Pentagon is telling NBCâ(TM)s Michael Isikoff that a special assessment team looking over the WikiLeaks Afghanistan war logs has found nothing that could damage national security.

  17. He should have... by Vernes · · Score: 5, Funny

    He should have shouted:
    There!
    are!
    four!
    lights!

  18. Re:Amazing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    There doesn't need to be torture, but there WAS torture.

    Manning was subjected to treatment that is internationally defined as torture. The US newspeak said it was for his own protection.

    Fuck you can't make this shit up.

  19. Re:You break the law you go to jail by mjr167 · · 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.

  20. He's been protected and served. by hoboroadie · · 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.
  21. Re:You break the law you go to jail by davydagger · · 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.