What We Steal Secrets leaves out
By Nathan Fuller. May 24, 2013.
Alex Gibney’s poster for ‘We Steal Secrets.
Alex Gibney’s “We Steal Secrets” chronicles WikiLeaks’ front-page, world-shocking 2010 leaks from inception to publication to aftermath, framing WikiLeaks’ work as a meteoric rise giving way to a self-incurred implosion.
While I find fault with this view, and even its premise that WikiLeaks has failed and died (the site continues to publish Stratfor emails and Kissinger files, it just won an important Icelandic victory to resume accepting donations through Visa interlocutors, and the Freedom of the Press foundation continues to funnel anonymous contributions its way), I’d rather let others dissect its portrayal of Assange and WikiLeaks and instead focus on how it characterizes Bradley Manning. (Read WikiLeaks’ annotated copy of the film’s script here.)
Earlier this year, we took issue with some of director Alex Gibney’s comments associating whistleblowing with alienation, pathologizing Manning’s leaks and undermining his political values. Producer Sam Black emailed to assure us that, in fact, Bradley Manning is “a hero in the film. He is the moral and emotional center of a complex story about what should and should not be secret.”
Though the movie does laudably transition away from its opening focus on Julian Assange by reminding viewers that Manning is the courageous whistleblower who deserves at least as much public attention, Manning’s story only makes it into about a quarter of the two-hour film, which quotes journalists, former WikiLeaks members, high-ranking government officials, and fellow soldiers.
The time that is spent on Manning leaves much to be desired, and what it leaves out is as much to blame as what it includes. Ultimately, the resulting portrait of Bradley Manning is one of pity more than empathy, one that makes us feel bad for Manning rather than take a serious interest in his beliefs and his plight.
Near the end of the film, journalist James Ball says, “Whistleblowing is an isolating act,” because it forces one to make public things that your peers and friends want to keep secret. But the film’s portrayal reverses that succession, seeming to imply that whistleblowing follows from alienation, not the other way around.
The filmmakers could have avoided this pat and familiar narrative with mere patience: a few short months after production was finished, PFC Bradley Manning provided the most salient, film-ready testimony a director could want – his 10,000-word statement explaining his Army work and decision to release documents to WikiLeaks.
In that statement, Manning passionately articulates his reasoning:
I felt that we were risking so much for people that seemed unwilling to cooperate with us, leading to frustration and anger on both sides. I began to become depressed with the situation that we found ourselves increasingly mired in year after year. The [war logs] documented this in great detail and provide a context of what we were seeing on the ground.
He shines light on his mindset at the time and his political convictions:
I felt this sense of relief by [WikiLeaks] having [the information]. I felt I had accomplished something that allowed me to have a clear conscience based upon what I had seen and what I had read about and knew were happening in both Iraq and Afghanistan everyday.
He vividly conveys his revulsion:
The most alarming aspect of the video to me…was the seemly delightful bloodlust the Aerial Weapons Team seemed to have. They dehumanized the individuals they were engaging and seemed to not value human life, and referred to them as quote-unquote “dead bastards,” and congratulated each other on their ability to kill in large numbers….For me, this seemed similar to a child torturing ants with a magnifying glass.
Gibney couldn’t have necessarily known that such a statement was coming. But he would’ve been given this windfall of valuable audio had he not worked to release the film so early. The film is slated to premiere today. Bradley Manning’s trial will begin on June 3, in just over a week. If this were a civilian case, would the release of a major film about its defendant just days before his trial began appear unreasonable? Is Gibney trying too hard to get the story out there just in time for Manning to make the news again?
With the leaked audio published by the Freedom of the Press foundation, Gibney could have used those words above to take a holistic view of Manning while giving real credence to his political motivations. Instead, he relied on fellow soldiers’ memories and the infamous chat logs with Adrian Lamo.
Gibney did make some good use of those chat logs, highlighting a major turning point for Manning in the Army that many forget or minimize: his refusal to be complicit in the detention of innocuous Iraqi dissidents that he knew would be tortured and possibly killed. But beyond this incident, Gibney left us wanting for Manning’s observations and motivations. Why not include his comments on the first world exploiting the third, on almost criminal backroom deals?
The film simply focuses too much on Manning’s personality, and since it relies heavily on Adrian Lamo’s reflections and Manning’s fellow soldiers’ recollections, the remaining portrait is that of a gender-confused weirdo prone to outbursts. It affords extensive time to Jihrleah Showman, a government witness in Bradley’s Article 32 hearing in December 2011, to recount Manning’s emotional flare-ups, and at one point during her interview, Gibney leaves an unflattering photo of Manning up for 10 seconds. Is this really getting to the heart of what Manning’s case and struggle are about?
Gibney isn’t necessarily malicious: he doesn’t really blame Manning for his behavior, implying rather that he probably shouldn’t have been deployed to Iraq in the first place. The view is not one of scorn, but one of pity. In so doing, Gibney subtly removes Manning’s agency, characterizing him more as honorable victim than brave whistleblower.
In one portion, Gibney wonders why Manning’s chain of command wasn’t reprimanded further for allowing him to release these classified documents so easily. Why not take them to equal task for telling him to shut up when he brought Iraqi corruption to their attention? Why not take the government to further task for failing to prosecute the criminals that Manning exposed? Gibney only hints at these questions where a deeper exploration is desperately needed.
The problem isn’t that ‘We Steal Secrets’ fails to cheerlead for Bradley Manning’s every move. It’s that it conflates nuance with the government’s emphasis on personal issues over political convictions.
Sitting behind Bradley in the courtroom for a year and a half, it’s obvious that he’s not interested in our pity, but certainly needs our support.
excellent and vital review. Gibney has been deflecting criticism for months, declaring that (despite his interviews which clearly set out his opinions) he should not be criticised until the film has been seen. He is also trying to claim support for Manning, whilst further demonising Assange & WikiLeaks. I hope that after he sees some of the responses regarding his treatment of Manning, he will understand that opposition to his film is not based on some follow-the-leader adoration of Assange. There are myriad problems with his film, thank you for highlighting some of the most significant ones. The leaked audio of Mannings statement has been available for over 2 months, I would say he definitely did have time to include it in his film. It seems to be an editorial choice not to include it, rather than a time constraints one.
Alex Gibney said:
“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.”
That pernicious nonsense is just not good enough, doesn’t accord remotely with the evidence and is either VERY shoddy research or malicious. And either way coming at the ‘eve’ of the trial it is criminally culpable.
He followed this statement with:
“To understand Bradley and all his humanity seemed terribly important in this film.”
Yeh, right, Alex!
Thanks for the thoughtful reflections on those parts of Gibney’s film that are most relevant to Bradley and the Manning Support Network. Despite what Gibney may have revealed in interviews, a film stands or falls on its own merits and cannot be legitimately criticized before it has been seen. And whatever his comments, Gibney has earned considerable respect and certainly some slack for this previous films. Nor is it fair to criticize any documentary filmmaker for taking advantage of some “free advertising,” in this case releasing the film just before Bradley’s court-martial is set to begin. Gibney’s not sitting on a big marketing budget. Finally, in terms of evaluating the movie as film, we should remember, as Fuller does here, that Manning’s story is only a quarter of it.
All that said, Gibney’s portrait of the soldier who told the truth is clearly both inaccurate and unfortunate. My hope is that Gibney will make his next film about … Bradley Manning, and that he will do so with a considerably fuller understanding of how the young man he portrayed as a “gender-confused weirdo prone to outbursts” has been able to retain his sanity despite our government’s insane treatment of him in the three years preceding his formal court-martial on the ridiculous charge of “aiding and abetting the enemy,” among a host of other complaints.
It’s hard to know what to make of James Ball’s statement that “whistleblowing is an isolating act,” at least as it applies to Bradley. As the reviewer states, before the act, Manning certainly felt alienated and isolated in Iraq both because of his gender-related issues and, more so, because of the apparent “bloodlust” of the Aerial Weapons Team, the callous indifference of his superiors, and the general mire in which he and his fellow soldiers found themselves.
And after the act, the military (aided and abetted by its Commander in Chief) certainly did all it could to isolate and alienate Manning, throwing him into a metal cage in Kuwait, making him to stand naked and at attention on suicide watch at Quantico, and only moving him to the relative civility of Fort Leavenworth when the international outcry grew too loud to ignore.
But the act itself—clearing his conscience come what may and in the hope of stirring real debate about what the hell we were really doing Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere—was an act of pure liberation that brought him a profound sense of relief.
Further, while blowing the whistle on crimes and corruption of course isolated Manning from those who committed those acts and their supporters and superiors “up the chain,” it also forged hundreds of thousands of friendships with people around the globe who spoke up to say that they stood with Bradley Manning and for truth and transparency and peace. And while it is ironic, tragic really, that Bradley cannot touch or even see many of his newfound friends, he knows they are there for him, holding him steadily in their profound embrace.
As suggested in the review, perhaps Gibney or another brave filmmaker (someone, please!) might explore all the broken links in these “chains of command” that go nowhere, as in in Manning’s case, as in Abu Ghraib and in Guantanamo, and in so many other places. George W. Bush put America on suicide watch, and now we taxpayers have bought him a fancy library with a Secret Service librarian and another who bring him lunch.
Bradley didn’t steal secrets. He chose to do something extraordinarily courageous with the information entrusted to his care. He chose to give it away, to expose it to the disinfectant sunlight Congresspeople are always muttering about as they lead their blind compatriots down yet another legislative rabbit-hole.
But there was one secret stolen in this case and it is the most important one of all. It is the secret uncovered despite the military’s and current administration’s extensive, long-term efforts to bury it so deeply it might never be revealed. It is Bradley Manning’s voice. One brave person somehow surreptitiously recorded the long courtroom statement that Bradley waited three years to make, and in that incredible act allowed us to listen to what the authorities most feared—the unique, untrembling voice of a sane, selfless, soft-spoken patriot who held tightly to his truth and would not be broken. And because of that bit of brazen courage, we needn’t just read Manning’s long-brewing, well-chosen words; we can instead hear the clear, bright music of a beautiful soul revealed.
Maybe somebody should make a movie about that.
You are so right on brother.
I was especially stung by your last paragraph, “But there was one secret stolen in this case and it is the most important one of all. It is the secret uncovered despite the military’s and current administration’s extensive, long-term efforts to bury it so deeply it might never be revealed. It is Bradley Manning’s voice. One brave person somehow surreptitiously recorded the long courtroom statement that Bradley waited three years to make, and in that incredible act allowed us to listen to what the authorities most feared—the unique, untrembling voice of a sane, selfless, soft-spoken patriot who held tightly to his truth and would not be broken. And because of that bit of brazen courage, we needn’t just read Manning’s long-brewing, well-chosen words; we can instead hear the clear, bright music of a beautiful soul revealed.”
I can still feel the chills from reading that.
There was indeed one stolen secret, stolen back and Bradley’s voice will speak it to the world during the court marshal.
Small correction: “it just won an important Swedish victory to resume accepting donations through Visa interlocutors” should read it just won an important Icelandic victory to resume accepting donations through Visa interlocutors.” See http://www.pcworld.com/article/2036330/wikileaks-donations-by-visa-ruled-ok-in-iceland.html.
Thank you! Fixed.
Excellent article, thank you. One small detail, it was an Icelandic victory (not Swedish) Wikileaks won in regard to bankcard donations. http://rt.com/news/wikileaks-visa-iceland-valitor-346/
Thanks again for a great article.
Thanks — fixed that.
YOUR CONCLUSION IS SUPPORTED: PFC BRADLEY MANNING NEEDS OUR SUPPORT – WITH US AT HIS BACK, HE CAN DO WHAT HE WENT THERE TO DO.
Excellent article, I just have one small critism that in no way detracts from the narrative.
As was noted by Russell in his May 25 post, in a real life situation like Bradley was in, the isolation is felt both before and after. Overcoming this is why Bradley is a true life, honest to god, Webster dictionary definition hero. It can be looked up.
Everyone here is failing to see one major fact and it’s the fact that’s going to put Manning in jail for a long time. He stole classified documents from a classified system and released them to the public. It’s a major crime and regardless of the motivation behind his actions he belongs in jail for doing. If at any time someone with a clearance could just decide to give out classified information on a whim the fallout would cost a lot of people their lives. There are consequences to every action and his consequences need to be severe.
I spent years in the Army as Military Intelligence. Some of those years under great stress and at personal loss while deployed. Never once did it cross my mind to betray my country. He couldn’t have know everything written in all of those thousands of documents or what greater picture those individual pieces of information would provide someone seeking to do harm. Every single person I knew in MI knows his story and as soon as they heard it they knew what his punishment had to be. It’s drilled into for months on end that if you break their (The Army’s) rules, you are going to be punished.
He admitted to doing these things and that’s all that’s going to matter. So don’t be surprised if he ends up in prison for the rest of his life.
it is important to understand the Pfc. Bradley Manning did not break the law or betray his country. He was mandated to expose war crimes by the law of the land that, even though diluted by the Military Commissions Act of 2006, still refers to the Geneva Conventions that the US has signed into law.
Manning swore to defend the nation from enemies without and within. He is a brilliant man who was put in the position of analyst because he could evaluate evidence and understand consequences. Some of the information he explained to higher ups was not welcome and got him into hot water with those superiors who had nothing to gain by the truth being outed.
Everybody says, when they see the men convicted at Nurenberg, that of course they would not have gone along with those crimes, and of course it is every soldier’s duty to call out and resist being part of war criminality. But when a qualified expert, like Bradley Manning, exposes those crimes, it is a different story. It is the old human urge to kill the messenger.
If Bradley Manning goes to prison for the rest of his life because he uncovered war crimes and embarrassing ambassadorial behavior, then we must understand that none of us is free to uncover the truth, and must continue our lives chained to lies.