SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
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.
May 20, 2017
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.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)
Janine Jackson
Janine Jackson is Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) program director and producer/co-host of FAIR's syndicated radio show CounterSpin. She contributes frequently to FAIR's magazine, Extra! and co-edited "The FAIR Reader: An Extra! Review of Press and Politics in the '90s" (2019).
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.
Janine Jackson
Janine Jackson is Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) program director and producer/co-host of FAIR's syndicated radio show CounterSpin. She contributes frequently to FAIR's magazine, Extra! and co-edited "The FAIR Reader: An Extra! Review of Press and Politics in the '90s" (2019).
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've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.