Protesters want WikiLeaks suspect released from Fort Leavenworth

Protesters want WikiLeaks suspect released from Fort Leavenworth

www.kansascity.com

About 250 demonstrators from across the nation gathered in Leavenworth today in a rally supporting the man charged with leaking classified military information to a website

Read more: www.kansascity.com... they are trying to get him released, they said, and marched in the hot sun for many blocks to outside the fort waving signs and banners and chanting “Free Bradley Manning.”
Supporters say they have raised $150,000 for Manning’s legal defense and are planning rallies nationwide and an Internet effort wo

(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Supporters plan Leavenworth rally for WikiLeaks soldier

Before the march, those gathered listened to spokespeople for a wide range of allied groups including anarchists, anti-war activists, gay rights activists and others.

Paterson and others said that if Manning is guilty, he is a whistleblower that revealed information that should be made public, including a video shot from the cockpit of a helicopter that shows American airmen shooting down a group of men in Baghdad.

Well, crap. I totally forgot about this -- it seemed forever away when I first posted their intent. I meant to go to see how many showed up. And I missed it.

Above quoted text indicates there were speakers including different activist groups; I'm not sure why gay rights activists would have a claim to speak here. It has nothing to do with his orientation, except for perhaps he was being persecuted and had gotten himself in trouble and was depressed before he decided on his action.

Any thoughts? See the other thread for previous thoughts and ideas presented by several esteemed members.

I would welcome re-opening this debate and discussion. How does the gay part tie in to anarchy and antiwar? Or was it just an outlet for the gay rights folks (of which there are plenty in KC, and they hold annual parades and rallies. I know some of them personally, and I have interacted with others who were strangers when I worked in convention hotels where hundreds of them stay every year)?

I'll see if I can find a transcript or something...
Any thoughts, ATS?

Leah Bolger of Oregon, vice president of Veterans for Peace, said the chilling video demonstrates the horror of war and the routine deaths of innocents.

“Let’s say he did it because I’m proud of what he did,” she said. “He’s the hero and he should be given the honor and the glory of what he did.”

Supporters also say diplomatic cables he leaked helped catalyze democratic revolts across the Middle East.

Read more: www.kansascity.com...

www.kansascity.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Here's an article from the site that organized it, with additional info:
www.bradleymanning.org...

June 4th, 2011. Approximately 250 supporters —including many veterans—converged today at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas to rally for Bradley Manning. Supporters arrived from across the country and held large colorful signs that said, “Free Bradley Manning, Hero, Whistle-Blower.” They gathered at Bob Dougherty Memorial Park where they staged a rally with speakers and music for one hour. Then they marched several blocks to the main entrance of Fort Leavenworth, where Bradley Manning is being held.

During the rally, speakers called on the Obama Administration to protect whistle-blowers and to drop all charges against the Army private.

This was the first large public rally to support Bradley Manning since he was transferred to Fort Leavenworth. He was transferred on April 20, 2011, after having suffered under extreme and unusual confinement conditions at US Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia. During the nine months at Quantico, Manning was denied meaningful exercise, social interaction, and sunlight, and was at times kept completely naked.

The Bradley Manning Support Network worked with other local and national groups to organize the rally. Members from two veterans’ organizations—Veterans For Peace and Iraq Veterans Against the War—comprised a large part of the turnout, including members of Operation Recovery, soldiers opposing the redeployment of traumatized troops, who drove from Fort Hood, Texas, to attend the rally.

“Bradley Manning is a fellow soldier,” said Brian Wolfe, a Lawrence Kansas-based Army Veteran who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom. “If a fellow soldier is punished for taking his oath to defend the constitution seriously, what does that mean for our military and for our democracy?”

The information that Bradley Manning is accused of revealing includes the videotaped massacre of Reuters journalists and Iraqi civilians, as well as diplomatic cables that experts believe helped to catalyze democratic revolts across the Middle East this spring.

Referencing the “Arab Spring”, a 16-foot high banner read, “Freedom for Bradley Manning, American Hero. Let Freedom Ring from Leavenworth to Tahrir, Egypt.”

There is more detail and nice slide show on the site's report of it, as well as a reference to the video (which I have not viewed -- in fact I have only once or twice looked at Wikileaks information at all).

So, in this article there is much more detail on who and from where the supporters came, with no emphasis on the gay rights bit (at least I don't think so, but I rushed through it to get it posted here)...does that mean the KCStar reporter tried to slant the story in a way that was completely peripheral? Since I only have access to MSM and the Internet about this, I think it's questionable that he gave more attention than the website did to what groups were present.

And that seems like inflamatory journalism to me.

In other current events, I find a parallel here with the Casey Anthony trial (which was brought to my attention by CNN's front page with so many mentions I finally said "who the heck is Casey Anthony and why is the jury selection such a big deal?" So I clicked on the story. And then remembered "oh, yeah, the toddler, 2008". I never followed it after the first few days that she was missing. Now I'm getting caught up on all the publicity at the same time I'm watching the actual trial.)

I have been watching the case live since opening statements, to get an objective view of how it's really going down, and after about a week of that only, then I watched a couple of Nancy Grace (again, i was like "who is Nancy Grace?", figuring she was a Jerry Springer type, which, in my opinon, she is -- and I despise her tone and manner and think she's a sensationalist, opinionated, inflamatory, de-humanizing monster for the way she is presenting the whole thing).

The parallel being the MSM "window" onto these criminally charged persons as opposed to the reality of what happened/did not happen. Makes me trust the media even less than I already did, and, frankly, I think CNN is just as bad as Fox is said to be.

Regarding the gay thing, I think Bradley kinda freaked when he got his "Dear John" letter from his partner. But if the military had a wit of commonsense they'd have taken him off such sensitive duties on hearing about the breakup, much the same way as missileers find themselves grounded when personal problems arise. I don't know whether that was just thoughtlessness on the part of his senior officers, desperation because they were short of troopers or a deliberate anti gay thing.

Either way, they let an obviously disturbed young man continue to have access to sensitive information even though they'd removed the bolt from his rifle to prevent him killing anybody (including himself).

I think Bradley Manning's an absolute hero.

reply to post by Niall197


Precisely my point in the earlier thread; his superiors should have recognized he was unstable and emotionally off balance. It is ultimately his CO's responsibility, for not intervening.

Do you think the CO might possibly have been passively-aggressively ignoring his distress because of it's sexual-orientation basis? I guess that's possible, the CO or his immediate supervisor should have been able to recognize he was unfit to work. Why did they not take action then?

I question just how sensitive the information was that he leaked, considering that nothing happened because of it.

Much ado about nothing, I think.

Great, now the grand excuse is that he is Gay.
What's next? Maybe that he is a Martian Eskimo?

Excuses excuses excuses.
No one wants to own up to anything anymore.

Originally posted by macman
Great, now the grand excuse is that he is Gay.
What's next? Maybe that he is a Martian Eskimo?

Excuses excuses excuses.
No one wants to own up to anything anymore.

His sexuality doesn't give him license to disclose information. Nor is it to blame for any information he disclosed.

No-one in this thread has suggested that Manning's sexuality be used as his "get out of jail card" ... perhaps you're reading things into our comments which haven't been said ?

Originally posted by Niall197

Originally posted by macman
Great, now the grand excuse is that he is Gay.
What's next? Maybe that he is a Martian Eskimo?

Excuses excuses excuses.
No one wants to own up to anything anymore.

His sexuality doesn't give him license to disclose information. Nor is it to blame for any information he disclosed.

No-one in this thread has suggested that Manning's sexuality be used as his "get out of jail card" ... perhaps you're reading things into our comments which haven't been said ?

Then why have those groups there? Or request them to be there?

reply to post by macman


I assume they'd like mentally unstable gay servicemen with domestic troubles to be treated the same way as their heterosexual equivalents ? Just a thought.

Why not ask them ? And drop the hostility while you're at it, huh ?

Originally posted by Niall197
reply to post by macman

 

I assume they'd like mentally unstable gay servicemen with domestic troubles to be treated the same way as their heterosexual equivalents ? Just a thought.

Why not ask them ? And drop the hostility while you're at it, huh ?

So why was his sexuality brought up by these groups?

reply to post by macman


Maybe the gay guys also see that the American government is corrupt and only serving it's own needs or those of the corporate persuasion.

As the other member suggested, maybe you should ask them?

reply to post by macman


Maybe because if he is gay then it gives them something else to cry about. Seems like the only people talking about his sexuality is the gay activists. He had a security clearance and he leaked classified material to the public. No matter if you feel that he is a hero he still broke the law and will be punished accordingly.

I have no sympathy for him. He should have known the consequences of his actions. His being gay has nothing to do with the situation. If it did, then it would be a reason to keep gays out of the military, and I see no reason for that.

Originally posted by tamusan
I have no sympathy for him. He should have known the consequences of his actions. His being gay has nothing to do with the situation. If it did, then it would be a reason to keep gays out of the military, and I see no reason for that.

So you're saying - if your government is performing illegal acts and murdering people - then speaking about about it, is equally wrong, just because the 'law' says so?

Have you not considered that the 'law' might be protecting the guilty?

If that is how you interpret what I am saying, then yes, that is what I am saying. My life or the life of my friends could have been compromised because of his actions.

Originally posted by tamusan
If that is how you interpret what I am saying, then yes, that is what I am saying. My life or the life of my friends could have been compromised because of his actions.

+

How so?

Jut wondering why your life could have been compromised, what about the hundreds of thousands of others who are now dead both in the US, UK, Europe, Asia, Middle east etc.

I'm not trying to mistranslate you - i'm genuinely asking

Does the whistleblower deserve his torture and imprisonment? If so, what about the corporations who are ruining everyone's lives and the politicians who are doing the same?

Or do you unquestioningly obey all authority?

If he's found to be guilty of treason, then he should be shot. If he is allowed to get away with it, then that opens the door for others to leak information. He's not a hero to me.

I cannot answer the how of your question. That is sensitive information. Civilians are unfortunately killed in war. It happens. Less are killed at the moment than in past wars. How many Japanese civilians were killed? How many civilians did the Russians kill when they were in Afghanistan?

I think there are far worse oppressing and murderous regimes in the world, than the U.S. government, and there are worse waiting to take power when it's gone.



Just read the lyrics, if you don't like the band.

Originally posted by tamusan
If he's found to be guilty of treason, then he should be shot. If he is allowed to get away with it, then that opens the door for others to leak information. He's not a hero to me.

Shot? Why?

Because he was braver than you, or simply because you disagree with what he did.
May I ask YOU how you would deal with your Government (and corporations), how you could present to me a method of revealing corruption but without getting shot by people. Would you ring the police? Or would you shoot the corrupt people, or would you ignore it, or would you not care?

I cannot answer the how of your question. That is sensitive information.

You can't answer it, but you'd still like to see a man shot?

Civilians are unfortunately killed in war. It happens. Less are killed at the moment than in past wars. How many Japanese civilians were killed? How many civilians did the Russians kill when they were in Afghanistan?

I know this. So are you anti-war then?

But why are you suggesting shooting people if you're anti-war? This doesn't make sense at all.

I think there are far oppressing and murderous regime in the world than the U.S. government, and there are worse waiting to take power when it's gone.

And there are far more preaceful regimes in the world than the U.S govt, and there are better ones waiting to take power when it's gone.

Maybe if we had less of the childish 'shoot everyone' attitude, we wouldn't need whistle blowers, but as long as they still remain, then don't be surprised when people speak out about your crimes and the crimes of your government.

Originally posted by tamusan
If that is how you interpret what I am saying, then yes, that is what I am saying. My life or the life of my friends could have been compromised because of his actions.

You life and the life of your friends can also be compromised by the actions of your government too, isnt that true? In fact, if you are military, and in the middle east right now, lets be perfectly clear who is compromising your life and that of your friends. Heres a hint. Its not Manning or Wikileaks. Its the people that sent you over there to fight and potentially die to make a bunch of people who dont care about you, think you are a bottom feeder, and would not hire you, a lot richer.