I’m both thrilled and proud about our announcement today of a $60,000 donation in matching funds to Chelsea Manning’s legal defense. First Look Media, publisher of The Intercept, is donating $50,000 of that amount through its Press Freedom Litigation fund, with the other $10,000 donated by me. Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) — the group co-founded by Daniel Ellsberg, Laura Poitras, John Cusack, me and others, whose board of directors now includes Edward Snowden — will oversee and manage the matching fund campaign. FPF has agreed to waive all commissions, ensuring that 100 percent of donations goes to Manning’s legal fights.
As I’ve argued for years, Chelsea Manning is one of this generation’s greatest heroes. Daniel Ellsberg has called her “the personification of the word whistleblower.” Originally convinced of the noble intentions of the U.S. government generally and the Iraq War specifically, she enlisted in the U.S. Army. While deployed in Baghdad, she had access to troves of truth-revealing documents, which fundamentally changed her views and which she believed the global public also had the right to see.
Knowingly risking her own liberty, she gave those documents (none of which was top secret) to WikiLeaks for publication in order to trigger “worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms,” as she said during what she thought was a private chat with someone who turned government informant. The first Manning/WikiLeaks release — a video showing U.S. forces gunning down civilians along with two Reuters journalists while the soldiers chuckled and joked — sparked global outrage and debate.
To this day, the materials she made public — which revealed massive wrongdoing, deceit and criminality — are centrally featured in journalism about critical stories in the public interest all over the world. These disclosures played a role in sparking the Arab Spring by exposing corruption of that region’s tyrants as well as thwarting U.S. efforts to stay longer in Iraq by documenting brutal war crimes committed there by American forces.
She could have enriched herself by selling those documents to a foreign intelligence agency or media outlet for enormous sums, but did none of that. That’s because she had only one motive: to inform citizens around the world of what their governments are doing in the dark.
For her noble choice, Manning has been persecuted, brutalized and imprisoned by the U.S. government. She was subjected to prolonged pre-trial abuse in a U.S. Marines brig, which an official U.N. investigation found was “cruel and inhuman.” She was accused of “aiding the enemy” — essentially treason — for making these materials public, a charge that would have sent her to prison for life. Though ultimately acquitted on that count, she was convicted of 20 other felony counts, including several under the Espionage Act of 1917, and sentenced to 35 years in prison. Already imprisoned for more than five years, she’s expected to serve at least seven more. She was incarcerated at the age of 22 and won’t be released until at least the age of 34.
Manning is now pursuing an appeal on several aspects of her conviction, which, if successful, could significantly reduce her prison term. The appeal involves complex and unsettled questions of law, as well as a long and complicated trial, and is thus incredibly expensive. It is also of great societal importance, as the outcome of the appeal will likely affect the rights and defenses of all sorts of other whistleblowers in the future.
How to pay these legal fees has become a source of significant stress and anxiety for Manning. Her public pleas on her Twitter account have produced close to $40,000 in donations, a fraction of what the appeal will cost.
We decided to make our donation in the form of matching funds for several reasons. First, we want to maximize the amount she receives by encouraging people everywhere to donate to the fund, knowing their donation will be instantly doubled. Second, there is great public value in having as many people as possible express support for Manning’s whistleblower rights and actions by donating, rather than having us do it alone: there is an important statement in having support for her be collective. Third, seeing that so many people support her will be of great value to Manning personally as she serves out her prison term.
But despite remarkable resilience and inner strength, her circumstances are hideous, indescribably difficult and profoundly unjust. What we’re able to do for her is limited. But we can at least convey a strong showing of public support, combined with alleviating her anxiety over legal fees and ensuring that the critical legal rights at issue in her case are vigorously and fully defended.
When First Look Media and The Intercept were founded in the fall of 2013, we resolved to build more than just a new media outlet. Beyond our journalism, we wanted as an institution to promote and defend values of transparency, press freedom, whistleblowing, privacy and basic legal rights. Creating this matching fund campaign and making this donation is an expression of that original vision, and there’s no more deserving recipient of this support than Chelsea Manning.
Those who wish to donate can do so here.
Photos: Patrick Semansky/AP (Manning in handcuffs at trial); Orlin Wagner/AP (U.S. Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, where Manning is incarcerated)
This is perhaps the best bit of news I’ve read in a long time …
Thank you Mr. G, First Look, Trevor Timm and everyone @ FPF!
Also thank you, again, Chelsea!
I’m happy I’m able to help. One hopes this sort of quick public response worries that whole bunch secretive D.C. dicks persecuting whistleblowers, but it probably won’t.
You’re a stud, Glenn.
This is a wonderful thing you’re doing and I’ll what I can to spread the word. When I think of this noble young person rotting in prison I’m filed w/rage again at the pure injustice of it. Bravo, Intercept
Glenn, I’m not sure if you’re still actively reading the thread on the Iranian View Nuclear Deal, but I brought up an issue with the site on how I couldn’t see the comment button at the top of the page. It turns out, if I run this site fullscreen, it’s fine. If I have a browser sidebar like history or bookmarks open, the buttons move and are rearranged and the comment button isn’t there when the page resizes. Here are some screen captures to show you what the page looks like in both scenarios. One of the site web developers should have a good idea why this is happening and how to fix it.
Page display with browser sidebar open:
http://pasteboard.co/1ZyeeGfU.png
Page display with browser sidebar closed (fullscreen):
http://pasteboard.co/1Zyj1AK0.png
Thanks – we should probably set up an email for readers and commenters to send these as they are noticed.
I’m confused. Harsh treatment might have caused insanity, or stress with a form of PTSD, so any decision was suspect. The decision to immasculate himself (a steer can identify as a cow but is udderly different) is presented as perfectly sane, not the product of stress, etc. Which is it? I’m not being cruel but factual. Bradley Manning is a hero. If he attempted suicide, would you be advocating his “right to die” even if it was the product of the same ill treatment?
You are clearly an imbecile and don’t understand gender identity, because it is not a result of “harsh treatment”. That’s not how it works. CHELSEA did not “immasculate” HERself, you insensitive buffoon. Some transgender individuals just aren’t able, for various reasons – such as lack of social support, to come to terms with their identity until later in life, although they very much have it on their minds their entire life. It’s not something that just pops up out of nowhere in adulthood, especially since gender identity is pretty concrete by the age of 3 or 4. Chelsea’s courageous decision to transition at this time in her life may very well have partly been the result of the circumstances she found herself in, but she has always been transgender.
Do some research and educate yourself before making such ridiculous, offensive comments. I mean wtf are you even comparing when you talk about suicide/”right to die”?? I’m 100% sure that you don’t even know.
And no, you actually were being cruel, not factual.
“Harsh treatment might have caused insanity, or stress with a form of PTSD, so any decision was suspect.”
You know nothing about PTSD in any form but your bullshit is seen by all.
I’ll assume, probably wrongly, that your comment is the by-product of good faith ignorance rather than malice and just say that Chelsea made it clear to close friends and others long before she leaked to WikiLeaks that she identified as a woman and wanted to transition. In fact, there are clear references to that desire in the chats she had with the lowlife who turned government informant. So your assumption that her self-identification as transgendered is related to her treatment while in detention is obviously false.
As for your desire to equate being transgendered with mental illness, that’s its own pathology: people have done that for centuries to gay people, religious and political dissidents and countless others who exhibited differences that the dim-witted couldn’t understand. My guess is that you think it’s clever to refuse to recognize her gender identification but it’s actually the exact opposite.
The decision to immasculate himself (a steer can identify as a cow but is udderly different) …
I suppose you believe you’re being clever with your little ‘cow titties’ pun. Perhaps you should consult a dictionary though, as the word you chose to use is actually spelled “emasculate”.
…is presented as perfectly sane, not the product of stress, etc. Which is it?
Which is it? I’m guessing the third one since almost every trans person I hear discuss the process they have gone through clearly feels empowered, stronger and more spiritual for finally embracing who they feel they should be. And virility and procreative power are over-rated.
It really is a shame to see people who might normally consider themselves as “modern” and/or “informed” engage in prejudicial behavior that more ancient cultures rejected.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Spirit
When I was about 12 I found a paperback about Christine Jorgensen and read it several times. Notwithstanding all the sexually repressive conditioning I was then subject to, the book resonated with me. Not for myself — I have always been comfortable with my heterosexual femaleness, but for other reasons I identified with being different in ways that the majority could not deal with. I empathized with Christine and found her inspiring.
As the Roman playwright Terence put it: “Nothing that is human is foreign to me.” Unfortunately, that isn’t true so much for people like tz.
My suggestion is that you publish a running total of the donations and especially mention the amount that the media houses are donating. So, if NYT, CNN, WP, etc., do not donate, put them on the list with a “zero” amount against them. This will make them donate to save face. I am sure Guardian and WikiLeaks will donate, but I suppose WikiLeaks’ donation amount be withheld to be put in at the last moment as the other media houses can cite discomfort being listed along with them.
I’m in.
Pvt. Manning will need the funding for the appeals, as Glenn says; there will be two levels of military appellate courts, Army court of appeals and the US Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces (USCAAF).
Among the various appeals should be three breaches of due process: the inordinate amount of time in pre-trial custody (3 years, not 120 days); the type of pre-trial custody and her mistreatment therein; and the statements about her guilt by Obama and others in the chain of command.
That latter count is something military case law calls Unlawful Command Influence, and UCI is something that USCAAF has often used to quash court-martial verdicts outright.
The whistleblower allegations might also be very worthwhile, since a quashed verdict simply springs her, not provide future safeguards. The military appellate courts do have ongoing case law, at least in the military, and that would be of lasting value, if it’s part of an appellate ruling.
Just donated. Very strangely, I immediately received an email from the credit card company, asking if the transaction was fraudulent. Something is very weird here.
Ditto. My credit card company called just after I donated and I had to drag it out of her, but she said the donation to Freedom of the Press Foundation triggered a fraud alert. I said put my donation through. Thanks to Glenn and First Look to double my small donation. Wish it could be more, for Chelsea’s sake.
Of course, it would have triggered a terror alert also, but don’t worry there will be lots of triggers to keep track of.
Just donated 10 bucks via Bitcoin. The motherfuckin’ revolution will be streamed; tips are appreciated.
Cool, just donated & I am broke but this is something I care about. Great idea.
Deborah, you may be financially broke but your moral & ethical bank account is unlikely to run out. Best regards.
Nice.
There’s nothing like using name recognition and credibility to support a noble cause.
Very glad to see that the purview of TI and GG is expanding (ahem! Mona) from aspiration to reality on issues related to journalism and the truthful and accurate worldview to which too few people are exposed.
Now, about that political poster contest… a little wider exposure for the problem of the neolibcon, anti-transparency, journalists are the enemy, one percenter lock on our two party one system reality would only be expanding that purview a bit more… and paying for a nice silk-screened print run of the winning entry to be auctioned to help fund one of the worthy groups addressing the issue would require a significantly lower financial commitment…?
(and no, I’m not a poster artist)
Sorry if I’m sounding like a broken record by repeating myself, but I just want to see TI and GG mobilizing their assets… be the best TI and Glenn that can be to paraphrase a comment Mona made on another thread.
I prolly should have used an emoji for that. Like :-|
Well hell, I don’t know what the comment software turned my emoji into, but I meant something droll and wry.
“I prolly should have used an emoji for that. Like ????”
and
“Well hell, I don’t know what the comment software turned my emoji into, but I meant something droll and wry.”
Looks like the HTML5 canvas image has been taken off the Intercept.
Micah Lee is as good as his word and better than WordPress.
Sometimes words are better, and I like the words you chose.
‘Redounded’ and ‘evinced’ used correctly – but ‘brutalized’ means to cause someone to revert to a brutal state, not to treat brutally which is what I presume the author means. Interesting article though.
Cambridge Dictionary Online
yourdictionary.com
This exchange, and Pvt. Manning generally, reminded me of this:
“I think I am a verb instead of a personal pronoun. A verb is anything that signifies to be; to do; to suffer. I signify all three.”
—Ulysses S. Grant, in a note a few days before his death
Mona’s right. I suppose this is one minor lapse on Glenn’s part, using the passive voice. I would have phrased it, “The U.S. government persecuted, brutalized and imprisoned Manning for her noble choice.”
Kudos to First Look Media and Glenn Greenwald for their generosity. I have been a critic of Courage to Resist’s Chelsea Manning Defense Fund, which has accepted $1,866,495 in donations yet applied only 27.6% to legal fees. I am therefore relieved that Freedom of the Press Foundation will manage the matching fund campaign, and by waiving all commissions ensure that 100% goes directly to The Chelsea Manning Legal Trust.
Mr. Greenwald also reports that public pleas on Chelsea Manning’s Twitter account have produced close to $35,000 in donations. It’s worth noting that on May 13, 2015, she tweeted: “Thank you so much for all the donations in the last 2 weeks, we are at about 40% of the $100k that we need ^_^” This raises the separate question of how The Intercept’s public relations firm, FitzGibbon Media, has administered @xychelsea. Why did FitzGibbon tweet on Manning’s behalf that $40K had been raised when now, two months later, we learn it’s less than $35? Moreover, after FitzGibbon launched @xychelsea last April, donations quadrupled, only to trail off when FitzGibbon seemingly lost interest, tweeting as @xychelsea 58% less in May and another 56% less in June, then slowing to a trickle in July. Given that the Twitter appeal brought in much-needed money, why quit tweeting? I wish Freedom of the Press Foundation would take over operation of Chelsea Manning’s Twitter account, cutting FitzGibbon Media out of the loop just as FPF is bypassing Courage to Resist to raise funds on Chelsea Manning’s behalf.
Thanks, I appreciate that, but I have to say that your comments about FitzGibbon really bother me, as you’re smearing people with no evidence who are doing good things.
You have to be joking. You’re talking about a difference, at most, of $5,000, which is negligible in the scheme of things, and using it to insinuate something fishy without having the courage to state it expressly. If anything, it’s my fault: I heard $35K at some point, and so used it. Apparently, a few more thousands have trickled in since then. Why would you attribute that minor discrepancy to malice and use it to impugn people’s integrity?
What are you implying here? FitzGibbon is representing Chelsea FOR FREE. They’re doing it for only one reason: because Trevor FitzGibbon believes in the rightness of what she did and wants to help – so he’s using his time and resources to help her by helping to manage her communications. Why would you want to smear people who are doing that, especially when you have nothing to cite to do it other than a bunch of “mysteries” expressed in the form of questions.
Chelsea posted a handwritten letter stating that she’s the one who is tweeting; they’re posting what she dictates. She confirmed the same thing to me.There are all sorts of obvious reasons why the donation requests may have trailed off: including the fact that she felt uncomfortable constantly begging and the fact that the donations were trailing off so there were diminishing returns.
But you don’t even seem to have theories. You’re just casting a bunch of weird questions to imply that FitzGibbon has somehow acted in a shady way without concrete evidence or even a cogent theory. This really is unfair, and it’s such a common thing to see: I guess it really is true that no good deed goes unpunished.
By Chelsea’s own account, FitzGibbon has done a fantastic job representing her, devoting themselves with great commitment for no fee. Why would you “wish” that they’d be replaced?
Since last April, The Intercept’s public relations firm has used the @xychelsea Twitter account to solicit donations for Courage to Resist’s Chelsea Manning Defense Fund, which in the past five years has collected $1,866,495 yet applied only 27.6% to legal fees. It’s significant that to manage the new matching fund, you and First Look Media bypassed Courage to Resist and chose instead Freedom of the Press Foundation, which will waive commissions, ensuring that 100% goes directly to The Chelsea Manning Legal Trust. That promises to be a huge improvement, as would FPF’s administration of @xychelsea. You really ought to ask yourself, how can a Twitter account with 53.6K followers generate less than $35K in donations over a three-month span? That’s a pathetic 65 cents per follower. In my opinion, FitzGibbon Media is being paid for this “service” exactly what they deserve: nothing.
You must be an Attorney General to make such wild and insidious accusations. I am not saying you are making things up – it’s just that your belief system is convoluted and everything at a higher elevation than your neck is deranged.
So if Chelsea herself is happy with FitzGibbon Media is she a naif?
Great, the guy who crowdsourced the potato salad thing was slammed with money; Manning only managed to get 35k. Maybe we should kickstart Minestrone for Manning.
Can you tweak the site so donations attached to Canadian postal codes (rather than American zip codes) can be accepted?
Thanks for doing this, Glenn. I’m in.