Stand for Bradley Manning this Saturday at Fort Meade!

[Albert Doyle]

The proper context of Snowden and Manning is they are persons who stood-up against the monster. There are many Americans who support them yet this is pushed to the side and the matter is dealt with solely on a self-serving military basis with no influence by those out in the democratic body who see their actions in that context. So we are not in control of our military and have no democratic influence on it. We have been seriously baited and switched by a government and military that suggests embodiment of the militia minuteman serving his own democratic interests directly but the truth is we have a very effective fasicst authority in the form of the US military that dictates the actions of the people on a self-serving military basis totally divorced from any semblance of representation of the people or any progressive form of government.

We've created a monster and no democratic influence is in control of it. We adopted more than just the autobahn from the Nazis when we fought them.

[Albert Doyle]

Heroes to some:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-u8D1xkOhxw

[Magda Hassan]

Manning is Obama's, Bush's and Blair's worst nightmare: this man explains why…

Posted on August 13, 2013 by admin


Archbishop Desmond Tutu called for former British Prime Minister Tony Blair to be tried for war crimes for his role in the US-led second Iraq War and the Afghanistan War (ongoing). He also stated that whistleblower Bradley Manning should have received the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize for his part in revealing the very war crimes Blair (and George W Bush and Barack Obama) are accused of. This begs the intriguing question, if Tony Blair or a US president was arraigned at a war crimes tribunal, could we see Bradley Manning assigned witness protection and be subpoenaed to provide evidence for the prosecution, or, even better, as the instigator of the prosecution? Below, we outline how and the options available what is possible or improbable. It's time to think and act laterally…
A. The context
Last September, Archbishop Tutu declared that former British prime minister Tony Blair should be charged and tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity, specifically in relation to the second Iraq War, which was led by the USA. Had this declaration come from a blogger or a lefty paper no one would have taken a blind bit of notice. But this came from one of the most respected human rights' activists in the world and a Nobel Peace Prize laureate at that. So why was Tutu singling out Blair and not, say Bush, or even Obama? Answer: because the US Government and its officials, together with Israel, have notoriously not signed up to the Rome Statutes of the International Criminal Court, where war crimes charges are heard (though it is possible, albeit difficult, to prosecute US leaders via US courts see below for more).
Archbishop Tutu is supported in his demand by renowned academic Noam Chomsky and award-winning journalist John Pilger; and in a damning article by Ajamu Baraka, the founding Director of the US Human Rights Network and now fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. Legal experts concur (see below). Note: see also a good article on how and why Bush & Co have so far succeeded in avoiding charges in this article in AlterNet .
B. Charges: the rationale
A Dutch inquiry , led by a former supreme court judge, found that the invasion of Iraq had "no sound mandate in international law". Lord Steyn, a former British law lord, said that "in the absence of a second UN resolution authorising invasion, it was illegal" . Lord Bingham, the former British lord chief justice, stated that, without the blessing of the UN, the Iraq war was "a serious violation of international law and the rule of law" . The Chilcot Inquiry is yet to reveal its findings.
George Monbiot (who set up a website called Arrest Blair) went much further and in an article in The Guardian said: "Without legal justification, the war with Iraq was an act of mass murder: those who died were unlawfully killed by the people who commissioned it. Crimes of aggression (also known as crimes against peace) are defined by the Nuremberg principles as "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties". They have been recognised in international law since 1945. The Rome statute, which established the international criminal court (ICC) and which was ratified by Blair's government in 2001, provides for the court to "exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression", once it has decided how the crime should be defined and prosecuted."
C. Charging Blair
Tony Blair has been accused, specifically, of carrying out acts of aggression and if he ever stepped foot in a country where he can be arrested and subsequently tried at the International Criminal Court , that would be it. Unfortunately the definition of acts of aggression' is still ongoing and so Blair cannot be charged retrospectively for a crime still to be defined. But…
Luis Moreno-Ocampo , the first Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, believes otherwise and told the Sunday Telegraph that he was willing to start an inquiry by the ICC and possibly a trial for war crimes committed in Iraq involving Blair and American President George W. Bush. With Bush it may be impossible, but with Blair does he does come within ICC jurisdiction as Britain is a party to the Rome Statute.
Consequently, for the past four years Tony Blair has been assiduously dodging potential prosecutors by staying out of countries where he might be nabbed and charged. One wrong step and he may find himself behind bars, or under house arrest as Pinochet was (see below) with a pending trial in one of the world's court's. So, for the moment, you could say that Mr. Blair is on the run.
D. Charging Obama and Bush
While it may be difficult, but not impossible, to prosecute Bush and Obama and co via the ICC, it is possible to do so using the US War Crimes Act . This Act defines a war crime to include a "grave breach of the Geneva Conventions", to which the US is party. The law applies if either the victim or the perpetrator is a national of the United States or a member of the U.S. armed forces. The penalty may be life imprisonment or death.
It is also interesting to note that Nat Hentoff wrote on August 28, 2007, that a leaked report by the International Committee of the Red Cross and the July 2007 report by Human Rights First and Physicians for Social Responsibility, titled "Leave No Marks: Enhanced Interrogation Techniques and the Risk of Criminality", might be used as evidence of American war crimes if there was a Nuremberg-like trial. There would be another instances (see Appendix below).
And let us not forget that shortly before the end of President Bush's second term, news media in countries other than the US began publishing the views of those who believe that, under the United Nations Convention Against Torture, the US is obliged to hold those responsible for prisoner abuse to account under criminal law. One proponent of this view was the United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Professor Manfred Nowak , who, on January 20, 2009, remarked on German television that former president George W. Bush had lost his head of state immunity and under international law the US would be mandated to start criminal proceedings against all those involved in these violations of the UN Convention Against Torture. Law professor Dietmar Herz explained Nowak's comments by saying that under US and international law former President Bush is criminally responsible for adopting torture as an interrogation tool.
Further, we should recall that former dictator of Chile, Augusto Pinochet, was arrested in London in 1998, on Spanish judge Baltazar Garzon's demand, on charges of human rights abuses and on grounds that some of the victims of the abuses committed in Chile were Spanish citizens. Spain then sought his extradition from Britain, again, not on the grounds of universal jurisdiction, but by invoking the law of the European Union regarding extradition. (Pinochet was finally released on grounds of health.) Theoretically, therefore, a South American can be arrested by a Spanish judge under European legislation. (Indeed, Pinochet would have gone to trial had it not been for the intervention of the British Government under Tony Blair.)
Similarly, there is nothing, in theory, to stop a US citizen, including a president, present or past, from being arrested in Europe under European law if the alleged crimes had directly affected Europeans (which was the case with the war in Iraq) or their families.
E. Bradley Manning and the European dimension
Bradley Manning is a US citizen and a British citizen and therefore a European. His British citizenry automatically means that Manning has access not only to the UK courts but also the European courts; similarly, his mother, Susan Manning, or his aunt. This provides Manning or family members with a number of additional legal options to examine via UK or European-wide lawyers. As a UK citizen, for example, he has the right to lodge a claim in person or via legal representatives in both the UK courts and the European courts, including the European Court of Human Rights. Likewise, Susan Manning, or another family member, has the option of instigating legal action on his behalf or in relation to any violation of their own rights again, via the UK or European courts. These options are not instead of but additional to any appeals Manning makes in the US courts against convictions and sentences.
So far, none of these additional options have been taken up, though there are UK-based lawyers who are very much aware of these possibilities and it may well be that at some point action could be taken by, or on behalf of, Bradley Manning or a family member, to demand, for example, that all verdicts made against Bradley be overthrown given that he is protected by the Nuremberg Charter (the Principles of which he has followed) and the Geneva Convention (which forbids war crimes). It might also be added that his prosecution is a crime in itself, that his trial is more than an absurdity but a travesty of international justice and that those implicated in his prosecution should be arraigned.
Lastly, we should remember that Archbishop Tutu, Mairead Maguire and Adolfo Pérez Esquivel (each one a Nobel Peace Prize laureate) declared Manning should have received the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize, but also, only very recently, Manning was awarded the Sean MacBride Peace Prize , named after one of the authors of the European Human Rights Convention, the bedrock of the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights, which Manning and his family have right of access to correct injustices suffered. Which brings us to…
F. Manning the prosecutor
Let's get down to specifics…
One scenario in which Obama or Bush or Blair could be prosecuted for war crimes, or crimes against humanity, or for initiating an illegal war of aggression, is via a private prosecution by someone or a class of persons who allege are a victim or victims of those crimes. And it can be argued that Bradley Manning's prosecution was a direct consequence of wrong-doings by these politicians and their colleagues and moreover he has the evidence to prove it. Should such a prosecution come about, then the tribunal or trial for war crimes could subpoena not only Barack Obama, George W Bush and Tony Blair, but also Donald Rumsfeld, David Petraeus, Stanley McChrystal, Paul Bremer, Dick Cheney, James Steele, etc. Prosecution witnesses could include editors of newspapers that published the war crimes (e.g. Guardian, New York Times, Der Spiegel), former Guantanamo Bay detainees, persons tortured by US forces or Iraqi forces under US supervision, whistleblowers/witnesses (e.g. John Kiriakou, Thomas Drake, Daniel Ellsberg, Ethan McCord) and researchers from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and similar bodies.
In summary, at some point and with the assistance of US attorneys, or British lawyers, or European-based advocates/jurists, Bradley Manning could and with great irony commence a prosecution of Barack Obama, George W Bush and Tony Blair to prove their guilt in conducting war crimes or in conducting an act of aggression (i.e. the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan). In so doing, Manning would, in effect, be demonstrating his own innocence, in that justice is not, despite what Judge Lind thinks, about mere process and adhesion to principles of national law, but about loyalty to universal truths of a far higher authority.
Finally… there would be a way in which Blair, Bush and Obama could avoid any possible repercussions or counter-claim by Manning: to take the escape route option and pardon Manning as part of a deal. And who better to broker that deal than the man who believes wholeheartedly that Manning is a victim and that Blair, Bush and Obama are the criminals: Archbishop Desmond Tutu.
Appendix
A reminder of the war crimes… Here are the eight main charges (from a total of more than 40 ):
Note: the main charges, as listed below, relate directly to the Iraq War and the conflict in Afghanistan, with the bulk of evidence emanating from files uploaded to Wikileaks by Bradley Manning.
Charge #1. US authorities failed to investigate hundreds of reports of abuse, torture, rape and even murder by Iraqi police and soldiers whose conduct appears to be systematic and normally unpunished. The "Iraq War Logs" published by WikiLeaks revealed that thousands of reports of prisoner abuse and torture had been filed against the Iraqi Security Forces. Medical evidence detailed how prisoners had been whipped with heavy cables across the feet, hung from ceiling hooks, suffered holes being bored into their legs with electric drills, urinated upon, and sexually assaulted. For more, click here .
Charge #2. The "Iraq War Logs" also revealed the existence of "Frago 242," an order implemented in 2004 not to investigate allegations of abuse against the Iraqi government. This order is a direct violation of the UN Convention Against Torture, which was ratified by the United States in 1994. The Convention prohibits the Armed Forces from transferring a detainee to other countries "where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture." According to the State Department's own reports,the U.S. government was already aware that the Iraqi Security Forces engaged in torture. For more click here .
Charge #3. The Guantanamo Files describe how detainees were arrested based on what the New York Times referred to as highly subjective evidence. For example, some poor farmers were captured after they were found wearing a common watch or a jacket that was the same as those also worn by Al Queda operatives. How quickly innocent prisoners were released was heavily dependent on their country of origin. Because the evidence collected against Guantanamo prisoners is not permissible in U.S. courts, the U.S. State Department has offered millions of dollars to other countries to take and try our prisoners. According to a U.S. diplomatic cable written on April 17, 2009, the Association for the Dignity of Spanish Prisoners requested that the National Court indict six former U.S. officials for creating a legal framework that allegedly permitted torture against five Spanish prisoners at Guantanamo. However, "Senator Mel Martinez… met Acting FM [Foreign Minister] Angel Lossada… on April 15. Martinez… underscored that the prosecutions would not be understood or accepted in the U.S. and would have an enormous impact on the bilateral relationship". For more click here .
Charge #4. US special-operations forces have targeted militants without trial in secret assassination missions, and many more Afghan civilians have been killed by accident than previously reported, according to the WikiLeaks Afghanistan war document dump. For more click here .
Charge #5. The "Collateral Murder" video released by Wikileaks depicted the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad,including two journalists working for Reuters. The Reuters news organization has repeatedly been denied in its attempts to obtain the video through the Freedom of Information Act. The video, shot from an Apache helicopter gun-sight, clearly shows the unprovoked slaying of a wounded Reuters photographer and his rescuers. Two young children who were present in the attempted rescue were also seriously wounded. Ethan McCord, a U.S. army soldier who can be seen in the video carrying wounded children to safety, has said that whoever revealed this video is a "hero." An internal U.S. military investigation concluded that the incident was consistent with the military's "Rules of Engagement." For more click here .
Charge #6. The Obama administration worked with Republicans during his first few months in office to protect Bush administration officials facing a criminal investigation overseas for their involvement in establishing policies that some considered torture. A "confidential" April 17, 2009, cable sent from the US embassy in Madrid obtained by WikiLeaks details how the Obama administration, working with Republicans, leaned on Spain to derail this potential prosecution [by Baltasar Garzon] . For more, click here .
Charge #7. U.S. defense contractors were brought under much tighter supervision after leaked diplomatic cables revealed that they had been complicit in child trafficking activities. DynCorp a powerful defense contracting firm that claims almost $2billion per year in revenue from U.S. tax dollars threw a party for Afghan security recruits featuring boys purchased from child traffickers for entertainment. DynCorp had already faced human trafficking charges before this incident took place. According to the cables, Afghan Interior minister Hanif Atmar urged the assistant US ambassador to "quash" the story. These revelations have been a driving factor behind recent calls for the removal of all U.S. defense contractors from Afghanistan. For more, click here .
Charge #8. There is (despite government claims to the opposite) an official tally of civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even though the Bush and Obama Administrations maintained publicly that there was no official count of civilian casualties, the Iraq and Afghanistan War Logs showed that this claim was false. Between 2004 and 2009,the U.S. government counted a total of 109,000 deaths in Iraq, with 66,081 classified as non-combatants. This means that for every Iraqi death that is classified as a combatant, two innocent men,women or children are also killed. Note… A respected British medical journal published a set of figures indicating not just thousands of Iraqi casualties but closer to a million a genocide in both name and fact, that is only now becoming apparent. For more, click here .
http://darkernet.in/manning-is-obamas-bu...lains-why/

[Peter Lemkin]

By Robert Meeropol August 12, 2013



Afew weeks from now, a military judge will probably sentence Bradley Manning to serve several decades in prison for violating the Espionage Act of 1917. I feel a kinship with him. My parents, Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, were convicted of violating the same act in 1951. They were executed two years later, when I was 6.
That's only the beginning of my sense of connection with Manning. The prosecutors, and now the judge, have labeled his actions espionage, theft or other unsavory terms. Stripped of the pejorative legal expressions, however, what Manning really did was reveal the truth of our government's actions to the American people and the world.
In 1975, my brother and I began our effort to reopen our parents' case by filing a massive, precedent-setting Freedom of Information Act suit against 17 government agencies. Reporters asked us whether we were concerned that the material we sought would merely prove our parents' guilt. We answered that we believed the public had the right to know what was in the secret files even if it did not support our belief that our parents had been framed.
Although the revelations of the ensuing 38 years have, on occasion, challenged my convictions, today I remain convinced that my brother and I set the right course. From more than 300,000 previously secret files we forced into the public eye over the decades, including the release in 2008 of grand jury witness statements that had been kept under wraps almost 50 years, the American people have gained a much clearer picture of what actually happened in my parents' case.
We now know that my parents' trial judge collaborated with the prosecution, that witnesses perjured themselves and that evidence was fabricated; but we also know that my father, codefendant Morton Sobell and others did provide valuable military information to the Soviet Union during the 1940s. What they transmitted, however, wasn't the secret of the atomic bomb as the government claimed to justify the death sentence, and the government executed my mother even though officials knew she did not engage in any espionage.
The nuanced understanding we gained from learning the truth about what went on behind the scenes has provided us with very valuable lessons both about security failures and the increased need for constitutional protections in times of crisis.
The whole experience convinced me that citizens must know what the government is doing in their name. This is the only way people can make the kind of knowledgeable judgments essential to a functioning democracy. Manning wrote shortly before his arrest: "I want people to see the truth … regardless of who they are … because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public."
Some think Manning is a traitor. He released classified material that embarrassed the U.S. government and could put us at a disadvantage when dealing with other nations. I think the idea that we should elevate the interests of our country above those of all others, at a time when so many nations have weapons of mass destruction, threatens the security of every person on the planet.
My parents placed their faith in the USSR, a nation they felt represented the interests of the working class, which they believed included the vast majority of the world's people. I think they were misguided. While some countries may be a lot better than others, none has evolved to the point of deserving uncritical support. Although I do not reflexively reject the application of all state power, my primary identification is with humanity as a whole.
Manning also wrote: "I can't separate myself from others," and he continued, "I feel connected to everybody … like they were distant family." Isn't that how we all should be thinking? Manning believed that everyone in this messy human family we've created deserved to know the truth, and he was so appalled by what he considered U.S. war crimes in Iraq that he felt compelled to act. He will go to prison for that.
Meanwhile, those responsible for the things Manning revealed will go unpunished. And our leaders will continue to do everything in their power to hide the truth.
I wish all the world's armies were made up of people like Bradley Manning.
Robert Meeropol is executive director of the Rosenberg Fund for Children (www.rfc.org) and the younger son of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg.

[Peter Lemkin]

[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 84%"]

Bradley Manning's "Apology"

By Sherwood Ross [TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 60%"][/TD]
[TD="width: 40%"]8/15/13[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[TD="width: 16%"]

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

(Article changed on August 15, 2013 at 11:03)
Perhaps the most stunning aspect of the Bradley Manning trial was his apology yesterday to the court that, "I am sorry that my actions hurt people...(and) the United States" when, in fact, there is no proof they did either. This show of repentance and contrition offered during the sentencing phase of his trial for feeding WikiLeaks 700,000 military and diplomatic documents is pardonable given that Manning faces 90 years in prison and the price he's paid for his past honesty and courage has been three years behind bars, during which time he was tortured, humiliated, and hectored as any captive of a medieval Inquisition.

So here is Manning, pleading for forgiveness, confessing the errors of his way, every word out of his mouth undercutting the true reasons for his action, which was that he prayed his leaks would spark "worldwide discussions, debates and reforms." Yet, who is this idealistic young man from Crescent, Okla., to stand against the likes, say, of a Hillary Clinton, the former Secretary of State who charged Manning's action "threatens our national security." Ms. Clinton, of course, by supporting America's criminal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, (for which she will never be asked to apologize in a court of law,) did damage to America that would be unimaginable to PFC Manning, in that the wars she supported have drained the pockets of American taxpayers more effectively than a thousand Las Vegas casinos, and filled the morgues of the Middle East with the remains of a million innocent human beings gunned down by American firepower of the sort that emanated in 2007 from a U.S. Apache helicopter over Baghdad that we would not know about today if PFC Manning had not sent gunsight videotapes of the massacre to WikiLeaks. "There is no evidence that a single US soldier or civilian has been harmed as a result of his leaks," writes Chase Madar in the August 19-26 issue of The Nation magazine.
Forensic psychiatrist Navy Reserve Captain David Moulton testified, "Manning was under the impression that the information he was giving was going to change the way the world saw the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and future wars, actually," according to a Reuters account of the trial. As Manning is discovering to his sorrow, that kind of idealism has no place in America today, when the country Abraham Lincoln called "the last, best hope of Earth" has degenerated into an imperial war machine.
"Defense lawyers seeking a milder sentence rested their case on Wednesday after Manning's statement," Reuters reported. "With about a dozen witnesses including Army superiors, mental health professionals and Manning's own sister, they sought to show Judge Colonel Denise Lind that commanders ignored signs of mental stress." In fact, the defense has put forward arguments the judge may well dismiss out of hand, such as Manning's troubled upbringing, the alcoholism of his parents, his desire to be a member of the opposite sex, the unraveling of a romantic relationship, etc., etc.
No, Bradley Manning is going to do hard time for America's sins, guided by a defense that had no chance from the start of obtaining a fair trial, especially after President Obama prejudicially declared two years ago that Manning "broke the law" when he "dumped" those documents. Obama claimed, "We're a nation of laws. We don't let individuals make their own decisions about how the laws operate." (!!) This from Global Terrorist Number One, a man who has gutted the Constitution by signing the National Defense Authorization Act into law and has empowered himself to kill people in the Middle East without legal warrants or trials. Obama's assassinations are based on "suspicions" of a CIA Gestapo that has betrayed democracy at every turn while compiling an ugly record of Ku Klux Klan-style kidnapping, torture and murder Obama chooses to ignore. Sadly, the prosecution of Bradley Manning has come to symbolize the new fascism that has taken over America. When Judge Lind sentences Manning, the nation's prison population will soar at one stroke from two million to 300 million.

[Jim Hackett II]

Lamo was/is a creature of the intelligence community who infiltrated the white-hacking/Anonymous/Wikileaks communities. I don't even think there is a place for him in Hell. Now, I hear, he must wear a disguise and watch where he goes - and no longer goes out in public to meetings, as he once did to 'gather info'. Few to none will communicate with him face-to-face or via the internet anymore. angryfire Only his 'employers'.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How can I trust any Spook galloping herd? After Phoenix Program from the 1970s, They Lie. Period.
2 years to break past that coverup and even then the whole truth is not in the public domain.
Likely buried in Suitland MD, somewhere in the 100+ acres of underground DOD records.
While the FABLE lives still.

How can I accept the word of the NSA that "they stopped" or will "dispose" of gained data on all of us when I know the extent of the LIES that came before.
I know better than to take a Spook's word.

Simply put I cannot, when drones overfly the US in like civil spying on citizens. We are citizens not subjects. We don't allow titles in this country, or we once didn't.
"Sir knights" can kiss my American ass.
John Lennon had the balls to tell the queen to stuff his proposed knighthood up her imperial panties.
Being a Yank so would I. Constitutional prohibition of such aside I would even if legal to accept the so called honor.

We allow teflon coated politicians to strut the stage as the unclothed Emperor and a fascist Emperor at that.

Snitches are an endangered species protected by the Spooks.

Citizens brave enough to pull down the curtain of lies of the Spooks are not rats nor snitches.
Now knowing that the Empire will always resort to a lie before truth spoken to WeThePeople.
So don't accept a damn word governments try to feed us.
They lie and snitches make it a profession.
Damn 'em.
Semper Fi.
Jim

[Magda Hassan]

Bradley Manning will be sentenced in less than an hour. Legal or not he did the right thing. My thoughts are with him and his family.

[Peter Lemkin]

35 YEARS IN PRISON FOR EXPOSING WAR CRIMES, GOVERNMENT LIES AND MALFEASANCE AND LETTING US SEE SOME OF THE HIDDEN TRUTH!..... :loo::fullofit::thumbsdown:

I hope he gets the Nobel Peace Prize, but with the recent changes in the Nobel Committee [Kissinger, Obama, etc.], it is far from assured. And don't doubt the USG appealing for a longer sentence! Those who [to cite just ONE event Manning exposed] who killed innocent citizens, journalists, those trying to save others, and shot children have been sentenced to.......absolutely nothing. Killing is good. Whistleblowing about crimes is bad. Big Brother says so!

[Jim Hackett II]

I just read on the ticker at the bottom of the screen on CNN.
35 years.
Empire bites deep.
I doubt Mr. Snowden will be released as Dan Ellsberg was in time.
Ellsberg was Lansdale's fair haired boy.

Fletcher Prouty said the whole pentagon papers as NYT and WPost published them was a cover up,
to lay the blame for Vietnam on the DOD's door and cover up for the CIA manufacturing of that war.
Reading that edition I agree.
Gavel Edition seems closer to reality.

[Magda Hassan]

Bradley Manning: I want to live as a woman

Scott Stump TODAY contributor




JIM LO SCALZO / EPA file
Bradley Manning (center) leaves the courtroom in July. Manning was sentenced Wednesday to 35 years in prison.

Bradley Manning, the Army private sentenced to military prison for leaking classified documents, revealed he intends to live out the remainder of his life as a woman.

"I am Chelsea Manning. I am female," the Army private wrote in a statement read on TODAY Thursday. "Given the way that I feel, and have felt since childhood, I want to begin hormone therapy as soon as possible. I hope that you will support me in this transition."
Manning, 25, was sentenced to 35 years in prison on Wednesday after having been found guilty of 20 charges ranging from espionage to theft for leaking more than 700,000 documents to the WikiLeaks website while working in Iraq in 2010.
"I also request that, starting today, you refer to me by my new name and use the feminine pronoun (except in official mail to the confinement facility)," he continued in the statement. "I look forward to receiving letters from supporters and having the opportunity to write back."
U.S. Army / AP file
Manning emailed his military therapist this photo of himself with a letter titled "My problem," in which he described his issues with gender identity.

Manning signed the letter "Chelsea E. Manning."
During his trial, Manning's defense team suggested his struggles with gender identity as a gay soldier were a factor in his decision to leak. His attorneys presented an email to a former supervisor from April 2010 in which he said he was transgender and joined the Army to "get rid of it." The email, which had the subject line "My Problem," also included a photo of Manning in which he is wearing a blonde wig and lipstick. During Manning's nine-month detainment at the Marine Corps brig in Quantico, Va., following his arrest in 2010, he sent two letters to his counselor using the name "Breanna,'' Master Sgt. Craig Blenis testified at his trial.
Manning will likely serve his sentence at Fort Leavenworth, the only military prison for service members sentenced to 10 or more years, a Military District of Washington spokesperson told The Associated Press. The facility does not provide hormone therapy or sex-reassignment surgery for gender identity issues but does provide psychiatric care, a Fort Leavenworth spokeswoman told Courthouse News.
In the U.S. prison system, transgender prisoners who have not had genital surgery are generally assigned to live with their birth-sex peers, but the military policy is unclear.

Manning's attorney, David Coomes, told Savannah Guthrie on TODAY that he expects Manning "to be out" on parole in seven years. "But I actually expect him to get pardoned," Coomes continued. "At least that's what my hope is, that the president will in fact pardon him."
In the statement read on TODAY, Manning thanked his supporters. "I want to thank everybody who has supported me over the last three years," he wrote. "Throughout this long ordeal, your letters of support and encouragement have helped keep me strong.l I am forever indebted to those who wrote to me, made a donation to my defense fund, or came to watch a portion of the trial. I would especially like to thank Courage to Resist and the Bradley Manning Support Network for their tireless efforts in raising awareness for my case and providing for my legal representation."


http://www.today.com/news/bradley-mannin...6C10974915