Chelsea Manning Rejects ‘Pacifist’ Label in First Statement since Sentencing
WHISTLEBLOWING - SURVEILLANCE, 14 Oct 2013
Exclusive: In first public remarks since guilty verdict, WikiLeaks source expresses intense upset at public presentation of her.
• Read Chelsea Manning’s full statement
Chelsea Manning, the WikiLeaks source formerly known as Bradley Manning, has expressed intense unhappiness at the public profile that is being presented about her, warning that a false impression is being given to the outside world that she is an anti-war pacifist and conscientious objector.
In a statement issued to the Guardian, Manning insists that she did not leak hundreds of thousands of US classified documents to WikiLeaks because she was explicitly motivated by pacifism. Rather, she sees herself as a “transparency advocate” who is convinced that the American people need to be better informed.
“It’s not terribly clear to me that my actions were explicitly done for ‘peace’… I feel that the public cannot decide what actions and policies are or are not justified if they don’t even know the most rudimentary details about them and their effects.”
In her first public comments since she was sentenced in August to 35 years in military custody for leaking the largest quantity of US state secrets in history, Manning writes that she is increasingly concerned about what she calls a “substantial disconnect” between her experiences at the US military prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, where she is being held, and messages that are being put out to the rest of the world without her knowledge or approval. “I was shocked and frustrated about what’s occurred here,” she writes.
Manning’s concerns relate to the 2013 Sean MacBride peace award which was granted to the former army private last month by the International Peace Bureau in recognition of her “outstanding work for peace” in “revealing information about US war crimes”. The award was accepted on Manning’s behalf by Ann Wright, a retired US army colonel who is a prominent peace activist and opponent of the Iraq war.
In that speech, Wright suggested that Manning was “overwhelmed” that the Sean MacBride award had recognized “her actions as actions for peace.” Yet the former soldier insists that she has never perceived her actions in transmitting more than 700,000 classified US classified documents to WikiLeaks in 2010-11 as an act for peace.
“I don’t consider myself a ‘pacifist,’ ‘anti-war,’ or (especially) a ‘conscientious objector’,” she writes. “Now – I accept that there may be ‘peaceful’ or ‘anti-war’ implications to my actions – but this is purely based on your [Wright’s] subjective interpretation of the primary source documents released in 2010-11.”
Manning goes on to state that the material contained in the WikiLeaks trove could be used to support the opposite conclusions. “I believe it is also perfectly reasonable to subjectively interpret these documents and come to the opposite opinion and say ‘hey, look at these documents, they clearly justify this war’ (or diplomatic discussion, or detention of an individual).”
Manning is expected to spend at least eight years in military prison for her role as the source of the WikiLeaks disclosures. She writes that since the end of the trial in August she has been “trying to decompress and focus on other things after a lengthy and exhausting court-martial process”.
Those other interests includes her request to have treatment for gender dysphoria, which she announced through her lawyer David Coombs at the end of the trial.
Wright, speaking from South Korea where she is on a speaking tour, said she was distressed that Manning felt her beliefs had been inaccurately portrayed in the acceptance speech. “My intention was to reflect in an appropriate way Chelsea’s views drawn from her statement to court and her previous comments. I deeply apologise to her.”
In her statement, Manning said she was not aware of having received the award. However later on Wednesday, her lawyer, David Coombs, said that he reminded Manning in a phone call that they had discussed the issue on three occasions.
After being reminded of these conversations, Chelsea indicated that she did, in fact, remember the award and our discussions about it. She told me that she got confused when she recently received mail about the award, and assumed that people were writing to her about a new award.
Chelsea told me that she has been feeling isolated and out of touch with the outside world during the indoctrination period at the United States Disciplinary Barracks, which is what led to her confusion over this issue. Due to this confusion, Chelsea said she felt the need to write her letter. She told me that she is sorry if her letter caused any offense to the International Peace Bureau, Col. Wright, or her supporters.
Manning opens her statement using the name Bradley Manning – a legal requirement insisted upon by the military prison hierarchy. She ends it with the sign-off Chelsea Manning, and thanks “everyone who has avoided misgendering me and switched to using my new name and feminine pronouns”.
She also makes clear that in the light of her sentence she no longer expects to be referred to by military rank such as Spc, Pfc, or Pvt. Instead, she asks to be called “Ms” or with no honorific at all.
DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Click here to go to the current weekly digest or pick another article:
WHISTLEBLOWING - SURVEILLANCE: