Bradley Manning's Post-Sentencing Statement

This statement from Bradley Manning was read after hos 35-year sentence was passed by his lawyer, David Coombs.

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 in our efforts to meet this 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 our any logically based intentions [unclear], it is usually an American soldier that is ordered 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, the Japanese-American internment camps—to name a few. I am confident that many of our 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, and I regret if my actions hurt anyone or harmed the United States. It was never my intention 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 country that is truly conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all women and men are created equal.

One might wish that President Obama could put up such a principled defense for his scurrilous conduct in handing over the security of the American people to secret courts and universal surveillance.

What Do We Tell the Government?

This coming Thursday I am speaking at GOSCON, a conference organized with the specific intentions of informing governmental IT users about open source. Most of the speakers will be from the government side if the last such event I attended is typical, so I am giving a talk called No Free Lunch. The idea is to suggest ways that government can maximize the benefits of using open source, and provide open source teams with resources that will enable us to increase production, so this isn't just a talk for the Python Software Foundation - I want to represent a wider community if I can.

Twitter friends have already provided some useful ideas, but I will be happy to weave more in there if you can provide them. So, what would you like to see government (which in this context is principally the executive branch, but I am happy to include points for the legislative and judicial branches if you have them) doing for open source?

Technology for Keeping People Honest?

Simon Willison and his team at the Guardian in the UK have brought a dream a step nearer to becoming true for me with his new Investigate Your MP's Expenses site. After looking at government profligacy in the USA I decided the only thing to do was to open up public accounts to public scrutiny.

Simon's site (quite independently conceived) is a practical demonstration of the idea's feasibility on a large scale. All we need now is a sponsor with deep pockets and an interface to Mechanical Turk. The next election is going to be interesting.

The Other Side of the Bike Shed

I've long used the C. Northcote Parkinson bicycle shed discussion example to try to focus on the big issues, and suspect I may have been the one to introduce it to comp.lang.python (though someone with superior google-fu would have to confirm or deny that assertion).

It's always a temptation to expend most energy on the issues we feel comfortable with, and rush the discussions on the areas outside our area of competence even though they are the ones we should rationally spend time discussing, grappling with issues and trying to understand.

The current Bush administration proposal, on which they demand action from Congress within a week, sees the other side of the bicycle shed. Urgent action is alleged to be needed, and it seems that many in government are prepared to rush a decision through because they don't really understand the issues.

The fact remains that it's an unconscionable bid to bail out the fat cats whose corporate greed, with the connivance of the SEC, sent the economy down the shitter in the first place. Personally I'd rather see the discomfort spread about rather more democratically, with those who have been making money from their investments in ill-advised mortgages now taking losses still not comparable with those of the often innocent borrowers who are losing their homes by the thousand.

Remember, the value of your investments can go down as well as up.