Yesterday, I filed PFC Manning’s clemency matters.  This filing marks the end of my representation of PFC Manning for her court-martial.  Since being retained to represent her on July 16, 2010, I have fought to ensure that she received a fair trial and a just result.  Unfortunately, I do not believe that she received either.

Under the current administration, any unauthorized leak to the media of classified information is viewed as tantamount to aiding the enemy of the United States.  The prosecution in this case admitted as much when it stated that it would not make a difference if PFC Manning had given the disclosed information to the Washington Post or the New York Times.  The government-wide crackdown on whistleblowers and the extension of this crackdown to journalists threatens to stifle the very freedoms that we have fought so hard to ensure. 

It should not come as a surprise to anyone that there are leaks of classified information to the media just about every day.  The administration tacitly condones many of these leaks because the information released either makes the government look good or it is something that the administration wants in the public realm.  Bob Woodward has made a living by publishing classified information at the request of so-called anonymous sources from within the administration.  When he does so, it never seems to result in any calls for an investigation into the leaks or any condemnation of how the information could cause damage to the United States.

Given the regularity with which classified information is leaked to members of the press, it was somewhat surprising that the government reacted so harshly to the leaks by PFC Manning.  The information released by PFC Manning, while certainly greater in scope than most leaks, did not contain any Top Secret or compartmentalized information.  The leaked information also did not discuss any current or ongoing military missions.  Instead, the Significant Activity Reports (SIGACTs), Guantanamo detainee assessments, Apache Aircrew video, diplomatic cables, and other released documents dealt with events that were either publicly known or certainly no longer sensitive at the time of release.

Despite the information no longer being sensitive, our government was quick to condemn the leaks since the release had embarrassed the United States.  Due to this embarrassment, multiple elected officials and high level government employees made inflammatory comments about PFC Manning and her case.  Some elected officials called for PFC Manning to receive the death penalty.  Others government officials called her actions an attack on our way of life, and stated the leaks could lead to the death of U.S. soldiers and the sources assisting us.  And still others pronounced guilt before her trial even started by saying she broke the law.  The emotional and often hyperbolic rhetoric infected the military judicial process.  The attention generated from this case placed a very heavy civilian thumb on the military scales of justice.  Whether this thumb was placed intentionally or unintentionally, it influenced the process.  The impact from the pretrial statements caused the prosecution to adopt a “take no prisoners” approach to military justice, and the military judge to believe that she needed to send a message with her sentence.

Anyone familiar with this case would agree that a thirty-five year sentence is excessive for PFC Manning’s conduct.  The information disclosed by PFC Manning was not our nation’s most vital secrets.  During the trial, the prosecution struggled to show any real damage to our country as a result of these disclosures.  What damage it could show was speculative at best.  The reality of the situation is that this information did not cause any real damage to our country.  The Information Review Task Force (IRTF) and the other damage assessments by our government confirmed as much.  Unfortunately, the hysterical response to these leaks influenced the military justice process, and resulted in a disproportionate sentence for PFC Manning. 

As many of you know, I have filed a pardon request with President Barrack Obama.  I have also filed a clemency request with the Secretary of the Army.  Both actions were not acted upon.  Instead, I was told that action needed to be taken on PFC Manning’s case by the convening authority and appellate courts prior to any consideration of a pardon or clemency.  As such, it is my hope that the convening authority, Major General Jeffrey S. Buchanan, will take this opportunity to act when others have not.  It is within his power to disapprove the improper findings of guilt and to reduce the unjust sentence.

Once Major General Buchanan takes action on the case, it will go to the Army Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA) for appellate review.   PFC Manning will be represented at ACCA by military appellate defense counsel from the Army’s Defense Appellate Division along with civilian appellate counsel, Nancy Hollander of the firm Freedman Boyd Hollander. 

I will continue to assist Chelsea in matters related to her official name change and receiving hormone replacement therapy while in confinement.  I am hopeful that we will have positive news to report on both of these issues very soon. 

I would like to end this letter by thanking everyone who has supported Chelsea over the last few years, and who continues to support her as we transition to the appellate stage of her court-martial.  The effort to represent Chelsea could not have been done without the outstanding trial defense team consisting of Major Thomas Hurley, Captain Joshua Tooman, Chief Warrant Officer 2 Melissa Santiago and Staff Sergeant Jessice Bennett.  I would also like to thank the following for their efforts on behalf of PFC Manning: Tanya Monestier, Joshua Dunn, Charles Ganiel, Cassius Hall, Lillian Smith, Dr. Patrick Jehle, Commander David Moulton, Eric Lakes, Trent Struttman, Deborah Grey, Morris Davis, Lauren McNamara, Professor Yochai Benkler, Major Matthew Kemkes, Major Paul Bouchard, Casey Major, Chris Van Alstyne, Rob Van Alstyne, Debra Van Alstyne, Alexa O’Brien, Kevin Gosztola, Glenn Greenwald, Denver Nicks, Jeff Paterson, Michael Moore, Daniel Ellsberg, Ann Wright, Medea Benjamin, Emma Cape, Kevin Zeeze, Farah Muhsin Al Mousawi, Owen Wiltshire, Nathan Fuller, Bob Meola, Kathleen Gilberd, Mike Gravel, Kimber Heinz, Brigitta Jónsdóttir, Ray McGovern, Jose Vasquez, Dr. Marsha Coleman-Adebayo, Professor Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein, Slim Amamou, Lt. Dan Choi, Graham Nash, Ron Paul, Congressman Dennis Kucinich, Rainey Reitman, American Civil Liberties Union, Southern Poverty Law Center, Center for Constitutional Rights, Freedom of the Press Foundation, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Code Pink, Veterans for Peace, Iraq Veterans Against the War, Military Law Task Force, Courage to Resist, and the Chelsea Manning Support Network.  It was an honor to represent Chelsea and to be able to stand up for her in court. 

David E. Coombs

I’m concerned the growing trend toward relying upon FOIA exemptions to withhold large swaths of government information is hindering the public’s right to know… It becomes too much of a temptation. If you screw up in government, just mark it top secret.

As Chelsea Manning said “without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public.” Government transparency is vital to democracy. Read the full article here. 

How Chelsea sees herself, as interpreted by artist Molly Crabapple

As we’ve discussed previously on this website, Army whistleblower PVT Manning came out publicly as transgender on August 22, 2013, when her trial attorney David Coombs read a statement on NBC News announcing her desire to live as a woman named “Chelsea.” This announcement represented the result of a long process of personal introspection and discovery, which started before her arrest in May of 2010.

PVT Manning has recently filed to change her name legally from “Bradley Edward Manning” to “Chelsea Elizabeth Manning.” She also wishes to receive Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT), which is recommended by doctors as appropriate treatment for her diagnosed gender dysphoria.* She reports that she has made friends at Fort Leavenworth, and only wishes to be able to live as herself.  

In the face of military opposition, the American Civil Liberties Union plans to assist attorney David Coombs in advocating for Chelsea’s right to receive HRT. There is already precedent in federal courts establishing this right for transgender prisoners. We are confident that with adequate public and legal pressure, the military court and military prison system will follow suit.

To show our support during this struggle, and for her legal name change, we are renaming our organization and website to the “Chelsea Manning Support Network.” Chelsea has responded to this decision with enthusiastic approval.

* EDIT 3/25/14: When originally published, this article stated that “Chelsea does not, at this time, wish to undergo any surgeries or to be transferred to a different prison.” Chelsea has provided us with further clarification that her current request to the Leavenworth facility is for comprehensive treatment for gender dysphoria, and may or may not include particular treatments in the future, depending on her counselor’s recommendations.

P.S. For a better understanding of transgender people and the issues important to them, we recommend checking out GLAAD’s “Transgender 101″ blog.

For instructions on writing to Chelsea to tell her of your support, please see our “Write Chelsea Manning” webpage.

I would like to thank all of you for your support. Without your efforts–including organizing, fundraising, and public education–my court martial would not have been nearly as visible to the public, and many of the serious issues in my case would have gone unnoticed.

Currently I’m doing well.  I spend most of my time working, but when I’m not working I’m either at the library doing legal research and drafting, reading books, magazines, newspapers, and your mail, or working out–running, calisthenics, and various cardio regimens.

I’m currently waiting for the Convening Authority of the Military District of Washington, Major General Jeffrey Buchanan, to act on my case–including my clemency request, filed by my trial attorney David Coombs.  If Major General Buchanan denies my request and approves the findings of my court martial, my case will be reviewed by the US Army Court of Criminal Appeals next year.

In preparing for the appeals phase of my legal proceedings, I have worked with Courage to Resist and the Chelsea Manning Support Network to hire excellent civilian defense council, Nancy Hollander and Vincent Ward of the law firm Freedman Boyd Hollander Goldberg Urias & Ward of Albuquerque, New Mexico.

I’ve spoken a few times with both Ms. Hollander and Mr. Ward over the phone and I met them in person last month and I feel they are a perfect fit for doing this case, and we’re all excited about working together.
Both Ms. Hollander and Mr. Ward have achieved successes in complex, high profile, civil and criminal cases in the past, fighting to protect the U.S. Constitution, civil liberties, and social justice through work on Guantanamo, the Gulf Coast Oil Spill, and more.  They are eager to represent me before the military court, federal court, and perhaps even the Supreme Court.

I hope that you will continue supporting my fight for justice.  My case impacts important issues that affect many, if not all Americans.  These include the rights of an accused not to be subjected to harsh and unnecessary pretrial punishment, the right to a speedy trial, the right to timely and complete access to relevant evidence held by the government, and the right to a public trial.  Your support for my case going forward can even help to define the limits of power held by the military’s convening authorities, the Executive Branch, and the US Government.

Again, thank you for your overwhelming support thus far.  I have stayed–and continued to be–optimistic throughout all of what has happened.  I sincerely hope that we can continue working together to change history.

Salutations with warm regards,

CHELSEA E. MANNING
US Disciplinary Barracks
Fort Leavenworth, Kansas

Nancy Hollander

March 17, 2014

We are honored that Chelsea Manning has chosen us to represent her on appeal and we enter this case with our full commitment to it.  As soon as we have the record of trial, we will turn every page and research all issues.  We will not let fear or intimidation interfere with her constitutional rights.

NANCY HOLLANDER
Freedman Boyd Hollander Goldberg Urias & Ward P.A.
Albuquerque, New Mexico

March 17, 2014

Last week we retained attorneys Nancy Hollander and Vincent Ward to represent Pvt. Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning moving forward into the appeals process.  We simply can’t allow this outrageous 35 year prison sentence for sharing the truth to stand–while war criminals go free!  We are now counting on your tax-deductible donation, of whatever you can afford, to cover the $50,000 retainer of Chelsea’s chosen appeals team.

JEFF PATERSON
Courage to Resist, Project Director
Chelsea Manning Support Network, Steering Committee

The fight to free Army Pvt. Chelsea Manning is far from over.  Our priority is now raising money to support a rigorous legal appeals process that will significantly reduce her unjust 35-year sentence.  To hire a nationally renowned legal team that is willing to take this fight all the way up to the Supreme Court if necessary,  Courage to Resist has just loaned $50,000 to the Manning Defense Fund.  Now we need your continued support to keep this struggle for justice moving forward!

Manning was convicted on July 30, 2013 under the Espionage Act, despite many legal experts considering it outdated and unconstitutionally vague.  She was also convicted of several other charges related to releasing classified data.  Her final sentence was blasted by Amnesty International, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and a number of other prominent organizations and individuals because no evidence showed anything other than patriotic motivation on the part of Manning, or any indication that an enemy had used the information to hurt the United States.

She was imprisoned for over three years before trial, and was subjected to illegal pretrial punishment for her first year of incarceration, when she was held in isolation without access to regular sunlight or exercise.  She was also subjected to a biased court martial—the government controlled the defense’s access to evidence, the Commander in Chief proclaimed her guilty before trial, and the judge allowed the prosecution to amend their charge sheet after concluding their argument.  All of these injustices provide excellent grounds for appeals.

Manning has selected the attorneys Nancy Hollander and Vincent Ward to represent her in the US Army Court of Appeals, federal appeals and potentially even the Supreme Court.  They come to this case with a strong understanding of its political importance, and a desire to obtain justice for whistleblowing while defending America’s civil liberties.  Prior to law school, Ms. Hollander was an anti-war and civil rights activist.  In 2001, she was named one of the country’s top 50 women litigators by the National Law Journal.  Both she and Mr. Ward became well-known for their work representing prisoners held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, while continuing to work on other civil rights cases.

Manning, who came out publicly as transgender in August of 2013 while announcing her desire to live as a woman named “Chelsea,” is eager to change her name legally from “Bradley Edward Manning” to “Chelsea Elizabeth Manning.”  She also wishes to receive Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT), which is recommended by doctors as appropriate treatment for her diagnosed gender dysphoria.  Chelsea does not, at this time, wish to undergo any surgeries or to be transferred to a different prison.  She reports that she has made friends at Fort Leavenworth, and only wishes to be able to live as herself.  In the face of military opposition to Chelsea receiving HRT, the ACLU plans to assist trial attorney David Coombs in advocating for this treatment.  To show support for Pvt. Manning’s intent to legally change her name to “Chelsea Manning” in the face of military resistance, we are renaming our organization and website to the “Chelsea Manning Support Network,” at chelseamanning.org.

The public’s desire for government transparency remains in many ways the center of Chelsea’s story.  She was recently chosen as 2014 winner of the Sam Adams Award for integrity in intelligence, which is given by former CIA intelligence officials. 

NSA whistle-blower Edward Snowden, who received the award last year, congratulated her at the ceremony by saying,  “It is this extraordinary act of public service at an unbelievable personal cost for which we grant this award and our moral sanction to Chelsea Manning.”  Since Mr. Snowden is also being charged under the Espionage Act, the outcome of Chelsea’s legal appeals is likely to affect any US attempts to prosecute him.

While accepting the Sam Adams Award, Chelsea’s childhood friend Aaron Kirkhouse explained,  “I am now accepting this… for the release of a video and documents that ‘sparked a worldwide dialogue about the importance of government accountability for human rights abuses.’  To echo a maxim from Milton and Rose Friedman:  A society that puts secrecy—in the sense of state secrecy—ahead of transparency and accountability will end up neither secure nor free.”

Additionally, the San Francisco Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Pride Celebration Committee has responded to the efforts of thousands of San Francisco activists by electing Chelsea as an honorary Grand Marshal for the 2014 parade.  The annual SF Pride celebration is the largest of its kind in the United States, attracting up to 1.8 million people from around the world.  Last year Manning had been elected a Grand Marshal through a different process, but the honor was later revoked by the 2013 board of directors.  Thanks to the dedication of our supporters, the 2014 board has decided to redress that controversy.

Also thanks to the generous contributions of our supporters, Chelsea now receives high-quality newspapers on a daily basis.  At Chelsea’s request, the Support Network has purchased her daily print subscriptions to The New York Times and the Washington Post.  Additionally, since Chelsea plans to enroll in college classes next September to work toward a degree in Pre-Law and Political Science, Support Network staff will be helping to coordinate independent studies with professors who can offer her more personalized curriculum.

There are three primary ways that activists and volunteers can take action to support Chelsea Manning and her struggle for government accountability at this point in time:

1) First, if you have not done so, you can sign our petition asking President Obama for a pardon.  When you sign the petition we will mail a letter on your behalf to both the White House and the court martial Convening Authority.  Our petition can be accessed at privatemanning.org/pardonpetition

2) We also encourage you to organize a dinner party, speaking events and/or concert in your home community to help raise money to defend Chelsea. To learn more about organizing an event, please e-mail emma(at)privatemanning.org

3) This summer, LGBT Pride events will be taking place across the country. We encourage you to organize a Chelsea Manning contingent at your local pride celebration.  Last year, the Manning group was the largest non-corporate contingent in the San Francisco Pride Parade and gained wide community recognition as a result!  Visit privatemanning.org/events to register your contingent and receive materials for use at your event.

Heroic Wikileaks Whistleblower Private Chelsea Manning‘s fight for freedom was remembered at the Fourth Annual Veterans For Peace-Led Saint Patrick’s Peace Parade in South Boston On March 16, 2014 

VFPers (and many others) are still committed to fighting for freedom for Chelsea Manning. As had been done the previous three years there were prominently displayed signs on the duck boat and elsewhere on her behalf. An organized group marched right behind the VFP lead contingent with a banner in order to honor Chelsea and spread the word about need to continue to fight for her freedom and about the need to have President Obama pardon her.

Supporters of Chelsea Manning were also out in force distributing informational leaflets and the now familiar orange stickers now reflecting her new recent gender identification and encouraging participants to sign the Amnesty International and Private Manning Support Network petitions calling on President Barack Obama to pardon her. A speaker spoke from an impromptu platform about the case and its current status while the parade was being formed emphasizing that we will not leave our sister behind.

Whistleblower John Kiriakou argues that the Espionage Act needs to be re-written to consider actual harm done, and intent.

In a powerful op-ed in the LA Times, CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou, who is currently serving a 30 month sentence for exposing information about torture at Guantanamo prison, argues that the Espionage Act (also used against Chelsea Manning, Thomas Drake and others) should be rewritten to consider the very serious issues of intent and actual harm done:

I’m one of the people the Obama administration charged with criminal espionage, one of those whose lives were torn apart by being accused, essentially, of betraying his country. The president and the attorney general have used the Espionage Act against more people than all other administrations combined, but not against real traitors and spies. The law has been applied selectively, often against whistle-blowers and others who expose illegal, corrupt government actions.

Kiriakou points to numerous leaks of information by government officials, both accidental and intentional, that the government has refused to prosecute. Meanwhile under the Obama administration more whistleblowers have been prosecuted using the Espionage Act than in all other administrations combined. 

Read CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou’s full letter in the LA Times. 

Aaron Kirkhouse (left), a childhood friend of Chelsea Manning, accepting the Sam Adams Award for Integrity in Intelligence on her behalf. Also in photo: US Army Col. Ann Wright (ret.), Craig Murray, and former CIA analyst Ray McGovern.

By Chelsea Manning via Aaron Kirkhouse. February 19, 2014

The founders of America – fresh from a war of independence from King George lll – were particularly fearful of concentrating power. James Madison wrote that “the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”(1)

To address these concerns, the founders of America actively took steps when drafting the Constitution and ratifying a Bill of Rights-including protections echoing the Libertarianism of John Locke-to ensure that no person be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

More recently, though, since the rise of the national security apparatus – after a brief hiatus between the fall of the Soviet Union and the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center – the American government has been pursuing an unprecedented amount of secrecy and power consolidation in the Executive branch, under the President and the Cabinet.

When drafting Article III of the American Constitution, the founders were rather leery of accusations of treason, and accorded special protections for those accused of such a capital offense, providing that “[n]o person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”

For those of you familiar with the American Constitution, you may notice that this provision is under the Article concerning the Judiciary, Article III, and not the Legislative or Executive Articles, I and II respectively. And, historically, when the American government accuses an American of such crimes, it has prosecuted them in a federal criminal court.

In a recent Freedom of Information Act case(2) – a seemingly Orwellian “newspeak” name for a statute that actually exempts categories of documents from release to the public – a federal district court judge ruled against the New York Times and the American Civil Liberties Union. The Times and the ACLU argued that documents regarding the practice of “targeted killing” of American citizens, such as the radical Sunni cleric Anwar Nasser al-Aulaqi were in the public’s interest and were being withheld improperly.

The government first refused to acknowledge the existence of the documents, but later argued that their release could harm national security and were therefore exempt from disclosure. The court, however, felt constrained by the law and “conclud[ed] that the Government [had] not violated the FOIA by refusing to turn over the documents sought in the FOIA requests, and [could not] be compelled . . . to explain in detail the reasons why [the Government's] actions do not violate the Constitution and laws of the United States.”

However, the judge also wrote candidly about her frustration with her sense that the request “implicate[d] serious issues about the limits on the power of the Executive Branch under the Constitution and laws of the United States,” and that the Presidential “Administration ha[d] engaged in public discussion of the legality of targeted killing, even of [American] citizens, but in cryptic and imprecise ways.” In other words, it wasn’t that she didn’t think that the public didn’t have a right to know – it was that she didn’t feel that she had the “legal” authority to compel disclosure.

This case, like too many others, presents a critical problem that can also be seen in several recent cases, including my court-martial. For instance, I was accused by the Executive branch, and particularly the Department of Defense, of aiding the enemy – a treasonable offense covered under Article III of the Constitution.

Granted, I received due process. I received charges, was arraigned before a military judge for trial, and eventually acquitted. But, the al-Aulaqi case raises a fundamental question: did the American government, and particularly the same President and Department, have the power to unilaterally determine my guilt of such an offense, and execute me at the will of the pilot of an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle?

Until documents held by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel were released after significant political pressure in mid-2013, I could not tell you. And, very likely, I do not believe I could speak intelligently of the Administration’s policy on “targeted killing” today either.

There is a problem with this level of secrecy, obfuscation, and classification or protective marking, in that they supposedly protect citizens of their nation; yet, it also breeds a unilateralism that the founders feared, and deliberately tried to prevent when drafting the American Constitution. Now, we have a “disposition matrix,” classified military commissions, and foreign intelligence and surveillance courts – modern Star Chamber equivalents.

I am now accepting this award, through my friend, former school peer, and former small business partner, Aaron, for the release of a video and documents that “sparked a worldwide dialogue about the importance of government accountability for human rights abuses,” it is becoming increasingly clear to me that the dangers of withholding documents, legal interpretations, and court jurisprudence from the public that pertain to the right to “life, liberty, and property” of a state’s citizens is as fundamental and important to protecting against such human rights abuses.

When the public lacks the ability to access what its government is doing, it ceases to be involved in the governing process. There is a distinct difference between citizens, in which people are entitled to rights and privileges protected by and from the state, and subjects, in which people are placed under the absolute authority and control of the state. In essence, this is the difference between tyranny and freedom. To echo a maxim from Milton and Foes Friedman: a society that puts secrecy – in the sense of state secrecy – ahead of transparency and accountability will end up neither secure nor free.

Thank you,
CHELSEA E. MANNING

1 – Federalist Papers, No. 47 (1788).
2 – New York Times v. United States Department of Justice, 915 F. Supp.2d 5O8, (S.D.N.Y.,2013.01.03).