Chelsea Manning Is Free-but Whistleblowers Still Face Prison
Human Rights Watch is glad that Chelsea Manning is free. A statement from the group's General Counsel's office notes that Manning's "absurdly disproportionate" 35-year sentence for passing classified documents to Wikileaks in 2010, commuted by Barack Obama on his last day in office, was prosecuted under the Espionage Act of 1917, which they warn still stands ready for use against the next potential whistleblower.
Human Rights Watch is glad that Chelsea Manning is free. A statement from the group's General Counsel's office notes that Manning's "absurdly disproportionate" 35-year sentence for passing classified documents to Wikileaks in 2010, commuted by Barack Obama on his last day in office, was prosecuted under the Espionage Act of 1917, which they warn still stands ready for use against the next potential whistleblower.
The Act was intended to punish those who leak secrets to foreign governments, but the US government is increasingly keen to turn it against those who give information to journalists. Critically, those prosecuted under the Act can't argue they intended to serve the public interest, and prosecutors don't have to prove that national security was harmed at all, much less that it outweighed the public's right to know.
So as Manning walks free after seven years and 120 days (or "just seven years," as USA Today had it--5/17/17), some of it in solitary confinement, it's worth remembering that corporate media did virtually nothing in support of her clemency, even though her revelations were the basis for countless media reports--including revelations about a 2007 US military attack in Iraq that killed two Reuters journalists.
As FAIR analyst Adam Johnson (1/18/17) noted, it's a strange day when the US president is to the left of the country's editorial pages. But even though her conviction posed and poses a chilling threat to all media sources who seek to expose government wrongdoing, the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and USA Today ran no editorials supporting Manning's release.
The Washington Post ran three op-eds calling for leniency for Roman Polanski vs. none for Manning, but maybe the best reflection of things: The US counter-intelligence official who led the Pentagon's review into the fallout from the WikiLeaks disclosures testified that no instances were ever found of any casualties resulting from the releases. But on her sentence commutation, the outraged tweet "How many people died because of Manning's leak?" came from none other than the New York Times' Judith Miller, whose front-page promotions of bad intelligence paved the way for the Iraq War.
We are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. In a few short weeks, US voters will have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. Our Fall Campaign is underway, and we need your help. To power our newsroom through the rest of the year, we need to raise $125,000 by midnight on October 31. So if you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
Human Rights Watch is glad that Chelsea Manning is free. A statement from the group's General Counsel's office notes that Manning's "absurdly disproportionate" 35-year sentence for passing classified documents to Wikileaks in 2010, commuted by Barack Obama on his last day in office, was prosecuted under the Espionage Act of 1917, which they warn still stands ready for use against the next potential whistleblower.
The Act was intended to punish those who leak secrets to foreign governments, but the US government is increasingly keen to turn it against those who give information to journalists. Critically, those prosecuted under the Act can't argue they intended to serve the public interest, and prosecutors don't have to prove that national security was harmed at all, much less that it outweighed the public's right to know.
So as Manning walks free after seven years and 120 days (or "just seven years," as USA Today had it--5/17/17), some of it in solitary confinement, it's worth remembering that corporate media did virtually nothing in support of her clemency, even though her revelations were the basis for countless media reports--including revelations about a 2007 US military attack in Iraq that killed two Reuters journalists.
As FAIR analyst Adam Johnson (1/18/17) noted, it's a strange day when the US president is to the left of the country's editorial pages. But even though her conviction posed and poses a chilling threat to all media sources who seek to expose government wrongdoing, the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and USA Today ran no editorials supporting Manning's release.
The Washington Post ran three op-eds calling for leniency for Roman Polanski vs. none for Manning, but maybe the best reflection of things: The US counter-intelligence official who led the Pentagon's review into the fallout from the WikiLeaks disclosures testified that no instances were ever found of any casualties resulting from the releases. But on her sentence commutation, the outraged tweet "How many people died because of Manning's leak?" came from none other than the New York Times' Judith Miller, whose front-page promotions of bad intelligence paved the way for the Iraq War.
Human Rights Watch is glad that Chelsea Manning is free. A statement from the group's General Counsel's office notes that Manning's "absurdly disproportionate" 35-year sentence for passing classified documents to Wikileaks in 2010, commuted by Barack Obama on his last day in office, was prosecuted under the Espionage Act of 1917, which they warn still stands ready for use against the next potential whistleblower.
The Act was intended to punish those who leak secrets to foreign governments, but the US government is increasingly keen to turn it against those who give information to journalists. Critically, those prosecuted under the Act can't argue they intended to serve the public interest, and prosecutors don't have to prove that national security was harmed at all, much less that it outweighed the public's right to know.
So as Manning walks free after seven years and 120 days (or "just seven years," as USA Today had it--5/17/17), some of it in solitary confinement, it's worth remembering that corporate media did virtually nothing in support of her clemency, even though her revelations were the basis for countless media reports--including revelations about a 2007 US military attack in Iraq that killed two Reuters journalists.
As FAIR analyst Adam Johnson (1/18/17) noted, it's a strange day when the US president is to the left of the country's editorial pages. But even though her conviction posed and poses a chilling threat to all media sources who seek to expose government wrongdoing, the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and USA Today ran no editorials supporting Manning's release.
The Washington Post ran three op-eds calling for leniency for Roman Polanski vs. none for Manning, but maybe the best reflection of things: The US counter-intelligence official who led the Pentagon's review into the fallout from the WikiLeaks disclosures testified that no instances were ever found of any casualties resulting from the releases. But on her sentence commutation, the outraged tweet "How many people died because of Manning's leak?" came from none other than the New York Times' Judith Miller, whose front-page promotions of bad intelligence paved the way for the Iraq War.