The same problem happened for this film. Those descriptions that Manning feel lonely or alienated or his sexual orientation whatsoever might be true. However, there is almost no way to know if they are the motivation for whistle lowing or not. Even they are parts of the reason, it might be a quite indirect and the relation between them can be really subtle. There seems to be nothing in the film provides more details.

From the reply from the film producer indicate this film is like a work of “copy-paste” type of thing. Ya, he put Manning’s own view points about politics and then his colleague’s view points on him, such as “lonely” or “alienated”. This is one of the simplest way of stating causality implicitly, and this was the same way used in “dark zero thirty”.

Just imagine someone makes a film of yourself in this way, taking some of your words and getting other words of your partners, putting them together then saying that’s a film about you, what will you feel? After watching it, you will quite possibly say “WTF, who is the guy on the screen? That’s not me at all.”

By the way, when I see this sentence “But I urge everyone to see the film before they form their judgment of it.” , I had a smile on my face.

1. It’s called ‘WE STEAL SECRETS’ which is outrageous on various counts

2. The comments in the interview, especially this:

‘I think it raises big issues about who whistleblowers are, because they are alienated people who don’t get along with people around them, which motivates them to do what they do.’

I think he’s grasping at something here which he totally mangles, because the above statement is absolute shite.

He seems to be ‘trying’ to get something right at points in this DN interview – http://thetruthbyrcoldguy.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/we-steal-secrets-alex-gibneys-new.html – he calls Brad a ‘sympathetic’ figure – but he’s obviously got a long way to go still which is a pity.

Sad he didn’t do the whole journey before putting out this film…

Because whistleblowers certainly ARE very special and unusual people (why didn’t any of the other 1000s of people who had access to the info let us know what was going on?) but he gets this all ROUND THE WRONG WAY!

Such special and unusual people (singleminded, courageous, sensitive/ised and highly aware people?)doubtless spend time addressing their and the world’s ‘issues’ instead of blundering on w/o questioning anything like sheep – they are driven to seek truth in all areas, including their own lives (yes, and that’s pretty unusual…)

And indeed in this their focus and single mindedness is self-evidently different from most people’s and this may in turn mean some whistleblowers are sometimes alienated (they sure are AFTER the disclosures!), but it’s rubbish psychology to say their alienation is their motivation, when they are plainly dominated by a conscience toward truth telling, protecting others and exposing oppression.

To say otherwise and to suggest that their ‘alienation’ is actually their ‘motivation’ must imply ‘spite’ or ‘personal/material gain’ and it is quite obvious that neither of these feature in Brad’s case.

3. Either cynically or naively, the very real and serious threats to Julian Assange’s safety from USG are ludicrously dismissed.

One might ask how deep in the sand AG’s head is buried re this. Plainly either his research must be beyond belief incompetent, which is sloppy, or…?

Because even if there wasn’t abundant hard core evidence of a ‘criminal investigation of unprecedented size and scale’ into JA and WL; even if high profile US public figures had not called for JA’s death either legally or by assassination, and even if high level serving politicians had not called him a ‘terrorist’ – even WITHOUT all that hard evidence, you’d have to very very stoopid and/or ignorant to believe that USG is gonna say ‘oh well, never mind – water under the bridge, bud’ and do sweet fa about pursuing him, ESPECIALLY when he says he’s gonna CARRY ON getting the gen out to the public!! HA!

Where do some people put their eyes, ears and brains?

I hope Alex Gibney has the integrity to revisit this.

This is not only cravenly dishonest, but is also a direct denial of a defendant’s right to a fair trial.

By denying motive the judge is denying Bradley the ability to defend himself from most of the charges, and is denying him the status of whistleblower.

How despicable and unConstitutional is this?

I call this a show trial.