107 votes

Manning's Statement After Verdict #love

Text of Manning’s letter to president requesting pardon

Associated Press — FORT MEADE, Md. — The text of U.S. Army Pfc. Bradley Manning’s statement that will be sent to the president, as read by defense attorney David Coombs following Manning’s sentencing Wednesday, below:


If you haven't read it in it's entirety it is all here. It is beautiful. Thank you Bradley!

Here is a quote you might not have seen: "When these cries of patriotism drown out any logically based dissension, it is usually the American soldier that is given the order to carry out some ill-conceived mission."

Manning's statement, in full:

The decisions that I made in 2010 were made out of a concern for my country and the world that we live in. Since the tragic events of 9/11, our country has been at war. We’ve been at war with an enemy that chooses not to meet us on any traditional battlefield, and due to this fact we’ve had to alter our methods of combating the risks posed to us and our way of life.

I initially agreed with these methods and chose to volunteer to help defend my country. It was not until I was in Iraq and reading secret military reports on a daily basis that I started to question the morality of what we were doing.

It was at this time I realized that (in) our efforts to meet the risk posed to us by the enemy, we have forgotten our humanity.

We consciously elected to devalue human life both in Iraq and Afghanistan. When we engaged those that we perceived were the enemy, we sometimes killed innocent civilians. Whenever we killed innocent civilians, instead of accepting responsibility for our conduct, we elected to hide behind the veil of national security and classified information in order to avoid any public accountability.

In our zeal to kill the enemy, we internally debated the definition of torture. We held individuals at Guantanamo for years without due process. We inexplicably turned a blind eye to torture and executions by the Iraqi government. And we stomached countless other acts in the name of our war on terror.

Patriotism is often the cry extolled when morally questionable acts are advocated by those in power. When these cries of patriotism drown out any logically based dissension, it is usually the American soldier that is given the order to carry out some ill-conceived mission.

Our nation has had similar dark moments for the virtues of democracy — the Trail of Tears, the Dred Scott decision, McCarthyism, and the Japanese-American internment camps — to mention a few. I am confident that many of the actions since 9/11 will one day be viewed in a similar light.

As the late Howard Zinn once said, “There is not a flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people.”

I understand that my actions violated the law; I regret if my actions hurt anyone or harmed the United States. It was never my intent to hurt anyone. I only wanted to help people. When I chose to disclose classified information, I did so out of a love for my country and a sense of duty to others.

If you deny my request for a pardon, I will serve my time knowing that sometimes you have to pay a heavy price to live in a free society.

I will gladly pay that price if it means we could have a country that is truly conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all women and men are created equal.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
deacon's picture


what is nuttier,the nut or the engager of said nut?
but again,you clearly know nothing about me,where i have been or what i have done
but what I still noticed,you DID NOT as you could not dispute anything
i posted,but just between you and I,you could have googled the things
i posted,its all right there,and you just might have seen me in full dress
seeing you didn't,you won't
a wild and aggressive attitude? what this is,is projection,you are talking about yourself but tying to make it seem it is me,when it is really your own nature and character
You are funny,I think I like you
how about that little term i mentioned,have you looked into that yet?

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

Countless millions more are

Countless millions more are affected by our foreign policy sanctions, of pre-emptive wars, drone bombs, by our meddeling in their nations affairs, by our financing of dictators that we call allies. Manning and wikileaks catapulted our foreign policy into the spotlight, which is exactly where it needs to be.

These perpetual wars are bankrupting our country, our morals and our humanity. Just look at the suicide rates of our military men/women who are dying more by their own hand than on the battlefield to see some of those effects of our unending, unjust, illegal occupations.

Is this a two wrongs make a

Is this a two wrongs make a right argument? What does ANY of that have to do with what Manning did? A legitimate argument against the war doesn't justify his actions.

Manning/Wikileaks didn't catapult anything good to the spotlight. They generated a mass of one-sided news benefiting the Left.

No, it's not about two wrongs

No, it's not about two wrongs make a right. It's about cause and effect. Perhaps, if our "public servants" read their employee handbook, ie, the Constitution, this might have never happened. It is all interconnected, regardless if you will recognize it or not.

As for your comment to the left benefitting from this exposure, thanks for the laugh. Still believe we have a two party system in this country, do you? Do you really believe that the media, who's parent companies are heavily invested in war contracts, aren't reading off their teleprompters like it's a damn screenplay?

Military action in Iraq was

Military action in Iraq was authorized by Congress. It WAS Constitutional. As was/is Afghanistan. The only person who broke his sworn oath was Manning. What Manning did was unconstitutional.

Your conspiracy theories about the media don't make any sense because the media has been against Iraq from day one reporting lies. Anybody who engages in lies is suspect. For the war, against the war, if you distort the truth to advance your position then your position is not one worth advancing.

Thanks for the reply.

Thanks for the reply. However, these occupations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc. were not Constitutional. Congress might have "authorized" and funded, but according to our supreme law of the land (the Constitution), war must be officially declared....which it never was.

Where in the Constitution does it say we should police the world? ! ? Why should Americans supply the cannon fodder and foot the bills for illegal wars waged through United Nations mandates instead of a declaration of war as mandated by the Constitution? The last time congress legally declared war was in 1941. Do international laws and the United Nations now supercede our Constitution?

The executive branch goes to war through UN mandates and the congressional crime syndicate funds it. Outrageous!

The U.S. Constitution, not the UN or any of its subordinate groups, should dictate U.S. policy.

Manning was fulfilling the oath he swore to defend and protect the Constitution. He exposed criminal acts perpetrated by his superiors. I am certain he knew he was risking his freedom and lively hood in doing so. It took courage, morals and character. In times of war, the first causality is Truth.

As for my "conspiracy" regarding our media, I implore you to do some research. With a little research you will find that there is a close interlock between big media and corporate america. There are big media directors who are former Senators or Representatives in the House, such as Sam Nunn (Disney) and William Cohen (Viacom). Board members served at the FCC such as William Kennard(new york times) and Dennis FitzSimmons (tribune company) showing revolving door relationships with big media and US government officials.

We can't be reliant on military contractors (GE) to bring us our news about these wars, any more than we can be reliant upon television networks that are run by Disney to bring us the truth about what's happening with our economy.

First, you mentioned Libya.

First, you mentioned Libya. We have never tried to occupy Libya.

Back to the constitutionality however, I discussed this at length elsewhere. Honestly not sure if it's in this same thread or not. But here it is in a nutshell. Can you show me where in the Constitution it requires that declarations of war be in a particular format? Congress wrote specific laws authorizing military action in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is the same as a declaration of war.

Moreover, the nature of the wars themselves are different than those in the recent past as we're largely facing stateless entities. Both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison led wars against the Barbary Pirates, and neither of these wars had any kind of a declaration of war from Congress in any format. Constitutionally the president has the authority to declare war as a defensive measure. If a nation were to attack US soil does the president need to get Congress' permission before he responds to defend us? Of course not. That would be silly.

In the case of Afghanistan the president didn't need any authorization from Congress at all because of 9/11. Nonetheless he got unanimous approval from Congress. I say unanimous but Barbara Lee did vote "nay," but she doesn't count. The president likewise got Congressional approval before going into Iraq.

Both wars are completely constitutional.

Imentioned Libya because we

Imentioned Libya because we bombed the hell out of that country via Unconstitutional Presidential executive orders and United Nations mandates. Might as well add Yemen and somilia to that list.

If you really want to get into the legality of these wars, then we must go back to 9-11. Since we are facing "stateless enemies" and 9-11 was not carried out by another nation state, then under our cuurent laws, it would not be considered an act of war. It would be considered a criminal act carried out individuals, which gives our country no legal reason for bombing, occupying, and killing off leaders of sovereign nations.

From my understanding of the Constitution, the President cannot wage war unless our nation is under imminent threat. Our Founders made sure that the more democratically responsive branch had much more responsibility regarding the issues of war than the executive branch.

Defense of our homeland is one thing, offensive tactics overseas are quite another.

Libya was unconstitutional,

Libya was unconstitutional, won't disagree there. But this is because Obama went past the 60 day mark without Congressional approval. Technically POTUS can do whatever he wants for 60 days, Congress gave him that authority with the War Powers Act. Don't agree with this law, but it does exist.

Hey, we found some common

Hey, we found some common ground! *high five*

I find the War Powers Act to also be unconstitutional. It nullifies the ORIGINAL INTENT of the Constitution, regarding who has the power to make war and how. The President already had power to use military might when our country is under IMMINENT threat. The WPA just handed the power to the executive to wage wars anytime he pleases, using excuses such as humanitarism, deMOCKracy, freedom, national security, blah, blah, blah. We should all know by now, that once the war machine gets rolling, it's not easily stopped.

What was the original time frame we were given for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Mere months, if I remember correctly and yet, here we are still very much involved in Iraq, in training the abusive security forces and in propping up the corrupt and dictatorial Maliki government, even though our officials have proclaimed that the war has ended . We were told the war in Afghanistan is winding down, yet we still have Americans dying over there, in the graveyard of empires.

The executive branch, regardless if it's Republican or Democrat, love to make war. The unconstitutional War Powers Act bypasses the will of the people. The "law" is preverted.

deacon's picture

you have a point

in this statement of yours

"Manning/Wikileaks didn't catapult anything good to the spotlight. They generated a mass of one-sided news benefiting the Left."

they didn't catapult anything to the spotlight...concerning whom?
the military? the same ones exposed shooting civilians out of a helo?
the same ones shooting women/children,then using drop weapons,and then
justifying their atrocities?
or how about the fact Afghanistan had little to none poppy production
but now being in full operation and guarded by the american military?
or how the fact,they are now guarding an oil pipe line?

"they generated a mass of one sided news benefiting the left?"
as apposed to what? no news of any importance?

or this from your comment " A legitimate argument against the war doesn't justify his actions." seeing you stated you were in the military,this indicates you swore an oath to the const...right?was this war a const war? or was it fabricated on lies? lies that continue to this day?
yeah..we went after bin laden !! was he involved in some way? I say not,seeing he was never on the fbi's most wanted list,and seeing he supposedly died twice already,or was it 3 times?

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence


Son, you're a nut and don't know what you're talking about. Truly a nut case you are.

Poppy production? ROFL. Kid, I'm one of those guys who's walked through the poppy and MJ fields, and I can assure you, we aren't guarding them. I was in Afghanistan just a few months ago. Why don't you try asking questions from people who've been there instead of mouthing off about things you know nothing about. The Taliban had a BAN on poppy production in force. So, really, is it any wonder that opium production might increase after the Taliban is removed from power? The US military has been actively engaged in anti-poppy and anti-drug programs, but there is only so much we can do. People are going to grow what makes money. Programs have been aimed at limiting the Taliban's funding sources, but we don't want to impoverish the average Afghan as this undermines everything we're doing. It's not rocket science, and there certainly isn't any conspiracy involving the US government cultivating and selling drugs. You are a loon.

deacon's picture

uh huh

are you the only one who was over there?
were you the only one who saw them non existent fields?
and calling me SON? this shows your integrity,you know get others to see you talking down to another,make the one who you are speaking to think they are now inferior,and prop yourself up on a pedestal
won't work with me,nor to most here
yes i know it is no conspiracy,its a proven fact
again,in case you missed it,we fund the taliban,so how exactly are we undermining their funds?
what is laughable is this from you
i walked through them poppy fields,they were not there before you got
and they are growing what sells??? who the hell are they selling it to?
you know them poppy fields,who buys it now,and how does it all get shipped out?
BTW, i have a few friends who speak of this,who do you think i am going to believe? you,who has so far offered nothing or my friends who were part of it?
love the words you used,can't offer anything of value,but take the offensive
by being offensive (name calling pffft)

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

deacon's picture


who is the taliban? who pays them?

so,we pay our alleged enemies?


makes no sense,does it?

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

I'm getting the feeling mad23 is CIA

or at least involved in the Military or someone close to them is. Nothing else could justify such blatant blind defence of government war crimes referencing "potential" damage rather than any ACTUAL damage done. It's all a bit too pro-war for this to be an observant civilian.

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

I've known people, even in my family, with such . . .

attitudes as mad23, and they haven't been CIA; they were involved in the military however.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

I have said openly on this

I have said openly on this forum that I'm a combat veteran and have served in SOF in GWOT. Outside of the military I have also spent an extensive amount of time in the Middle East as a civilian. My opinions are based on what I've seen with my own eyes. So, no, I am not an ignorant civilian. And I'm certainly not pro-war. Can you show me where I've said anything that is in any way pro-war? Nope, what I've said is against Manning. Try to stay on the subject.


You are clearly very emotional regarding this issue of Manning's revelations POTENTIALLY causing harm to those in the military due to your very personal experiences that I clearly cannot come close to understanding and I won't pretend to. And when you have this automatic defensiveness when trying to express your opinion, you may come off negative, aggressive, insulting, etc., which causes people to focus on that rather than the point you are trying to convey. You even may read words that aren't there because your own bias is so overwhelmingly strong that it's impeding your perception of reality.

"So, no, I am not an ignorant civilian."

I never said you were. I said you didn't sound like just an observant civilian, which you admitted you're not. Again, our conditioned beliefs lead us to a preset bias that acts as a filter over our perception so try to remain calm when expressing yourself.

"And I'm certainly not pro-war."

And you're certainly not against it. Manning's revelations have put great doubt on the actions of the Military. Exposing war crimes should not be a crime. Sure, Manning may have gone about it in the wrong way but the "right" way is exactly what's wrong here. No one listens, no one wants to expose these crimes and instead they conceal and hide evidence of it existing. So then you have one, JUST ONE, individual brave enough to challenge the system of silence. He now faces 35 years in prison. An act much harder and honourable than pulling a trigger.

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

Thought so

Thanks :)

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

I doubt the CIA hires jabronis

to sway opinion on a forum. The guy parrots the same mainline shallow BS you see on MSNBC and Fox. More than likely, just a case of a fool that thinks he knows what he's talking about just because he can repeat verbatim what Peter King said on Anderson360...

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, an

A typical paranoid conspiracy

A typical paranoid conspiracy theorist - anybody who disagrees with you is a "disinformation agent." It's really like a religion with you people. If someone challenges your faith you bust out the silver cross.

So where did I say that you were

a "disinformation agent"? In fact, I'm 99.9% sure you're not one of those lol

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, an

I suppose you have a point

I don't watch television "News" shows so I'm not that caught up on the rhetoric being spread around, but I agree, if that is one's source of "information" one would fit the characteristics displayed in these comments.

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

deacon's picture

yeah,there is that

seeing we funded the taliban and the confession from hillary
saying we created the alciaduh
FOX,even reports about this...yeah,i know its fox,but even a broken clock
is right twice a day

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

Linda Cross's picture

The decision to pardon, or not to pardon, Bradly Manning

will be based on to what extent it may make Obama look good. It will be based on the political benefit to this Administration, not loafty ideals and principals which Manning writes about and which decent humans respond to. If Manning is ignored by the people he will be swept into the dustbin by the Administration. A cry to free Broadly Manning should go out around the world so that our corrupt rulers might see it to their benefit to act nobly for their own good.

If you see something, say something, the government is listening.
Silence isn't golden, it's yellow.

Cyril's picture

God Bless.

God Bless.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago 1918-1956

“In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations.”

Brilliant, excellent