Chelsea Manning on Wikileaks, trans politics & data privacy | ANTIDOTE 2018

>>Thanks very much for being
here today and good afternoon. My name is and I’m the
head of Talks & Ideas at the Sydney Opera House. And I want to thank you
all for bearing with us through some pretty
stressful days. Thanks for coming along
and understanding. [ Applause ] Now as I imagine, you all
already know despite a lot of people’s best efforts
to try and make it happen, Chelsea Manning was not
granted her visa to be able to attend today in time. She was– [ Inaudible ] We received a notification of
an intention to consider denial under section 51B of
the Immigration Act. And this is an act which– a section that pertains
to the notion of character not being
of good character. And it strikes me that the
notion of character is nothing if not subjective
depending on where you sit, someone is either matter
or a terrorist, an expert or a propagandist, a
traitor or a whistle blower. These distinctions can be
pointed or blurry, again, depending on your politics
and your perspective. And look, I understand why
character has to be part of the Immigration Act. We don’t want people coming to this country inciting
hate or violence. We don’t want people who
are likely to hurt, murder, attack any Australian citizens. I think everybody
agrees with that. But Chelsea Manning
leaked thousands of classified documents
to WikiLeak. She served many years for
that– in gaol for that, and a few in solitary
for this act. And there is vigorous and
I think important debate about whether it was a
good thing or a bad thing to do whether she was laying
bare war crimes and corruption and exposing a system which
didn’t always support values that we might hold dear or whether she was
committing an act of treason which jeopardised sensitive
operations and military events. And people are entitled to
their opinions about this. But Chelsea Manning was
not coming to Australia to incite hate or violence. She was not coming to maim
anyone, to kill anyone. And it’s hard to think that her
coming to this country to talk about data privacy, surveillance
or ironically the abuse of power is going to be a threat to our national security
in this country. So, I’m glad that we’ve been
able to make it happen albeit by long distance because I do
think that what Chelsea has to say is important and I
think deserves to be heard and discussed and
debated by Australians. She’s going to be speaking
today with Peter Greste who is an academic at the
University of Queensland and of course a well-known
journalist. While he was working with Al
Jazeera in 2014, he was arrested by the Egyptian government
and spent more than a year in gaol in Egypt. I think that he is
a really good person to be talking to Chelsea today. So, I’d like you to welcome to
the stage convicted terrorist and one of the nicest and most
gentlemen I know, Peter Greste. [ Applause ]>>Ladies and gentlemen,
Chelsea Manning. [ Applause ] We haven’t got all night. A convicted terrorist
talking to a convicted spy, no wonder the authorities
are worried. Chelsea probably heard you. There’s an issue over character. Do you have bad character?>>I mean, that’s a matter
of her interpretation.>>Just to be clear, the
question under the act, the question of character,
someone is deemed to be of bad character, you’ve
been convicted of a crime and spent more than– and convicted and sentenced
to more than 12 months. And of course, the minister
does have the discretion to override this to allow people into the country regardless
of that background. And I think everyone
here would recognise that there is something
fundamentally flawed in the fact that you haven’t
been allowed to come. So, I endorse Edwina’s
comments a few moments ago. Edwina, I just– Sorry. Chelsea, I just wanted to begin
by asking, by taking you back because this is I
think quite fundamental to where we are at the moment. And that’s what it was
in Bradley Manning’s mind that made him feel that
it was time to leak, took him from being an
intelligence analyst and in the military
soldier into–>>I’m sorry. Please don’t– that
name [inaudible].>>No. [ Applause ] That’s fine. I guess what I was trying to say
is the kind of transformation that you went through in both
politically and personally.>>Yeah. I mean,
it’s– life is a journey and certainly been
a part of that. You know, like from childhood
to, you know, growing up and going through many
different transitional periods, living in the UK
for a while, being– you know, being homeless,
being in the military, I think all of these things,
you know, certainly add together in an accumulative
fact for, you know, making the experience
that is my life.>>But in terms of what
was going on in the field when we spoke earlier,
you’re talking about how you saw
a feedback loop that was ultimately destructive. I’m just wondering if you can
talk us through the process that you went through
as a military analyst because obviously
someone doesn’t sign up. You don’t join the military– A very few people join
the military intending to turn against it. What was it that flipped
the switch in your mind?>>Well, yeah. That’s a lot of question. So, I think that– I mean,
I enlisted in the military when I was, you know, 19, so obviously very
young and idealistic. I wanted to make a
difference in the world. Also, I had just been
homeless for about six months. So, it was a sense of
security especially at the time whenever I’m,
you know, working on jobs at my aunt’s house and being
kind of gender clear, not– you know, like not really
knowing what’s going on with my gender identity
and also, you know, working 80 hours a week which,
you know, juggling two jobs and also going to
college at the same time. And I– you know, I
got burnt out by all of these different
things and I wanted to make a difference in my life. And every day on national
television was this– you know, about the
surge, you know, the so-called surge in Iraq. And it just dominated– it
dominated the conversation. It dominated the dinner table. It dominated just– It was just
an all-encompassing experience at the time. And I wanted to be– to do something and be
a part of something. And my father– You know,
I also wanted to like– I naively thought like, oh, the military will man
me up so to speak. And, you know– Yeah. And my– you know, my skills
in terms of math and analysis. Ironically, I didn’t really
want to work with computers which is why I became
an intelligence analyst, but that changed like as I
arrived, they’re like, OK, here is a brand new computer
system that, you know, you are going to be using now. And so, I just used the
computers to do statistics and modelling, bayesian
statistics in particular. But, you know, at the time,
it was just number crunching that I ended up doing and I
had a very mathematical mindset on this, you know. I viewed– You know, I
thought of Iraq and Afghanistan as being equations that can
be solved that, you know, somehow I could just math the
shit out of this and, you know, make a difference, you know. And by the time I arrived
in Iraq in 2009, you know, the war being going on for
so long that, you know, there was huge amounts of
data for us to pore over and to run models on,
and I focussed on that. But once you’re immersed in a
war zone, you realise just how– like it wasn’t statistics
anymore. Like it– You know, like
these weren’t just– these were people with lives
and, you know, flaws and, you know, all of the
vulnerabilities that people have and all the hopes
and dreams and– you know, like mistakes that
are made and the life and death and it just became so real
and so raw just being there and flying over– you know, like
flying over neighbourhoods and, you know, knowing the
names of the neighbourhoods and like which–
you know, which– you know, which mohalla
number it was, you know, whether it was [inaudible]
or, you know–>>So, these were–>>It’s a lot.>>So, these were neighbourhoods
that you’ve been studying as an analyst back in the US–>>Yes.>>– and started to know
and understand and got to know quite intimately as
pieces of geography rather than as pieces of
human geography.>>Right. And that changes your
perspective of things like– because I knew everything
about this area, but I didn’t know anything
at all until like I saw it. I don’t know if that
makes sense.>>It makes perfect sense to me. I mean, I’ve worked in place. I’ve worked in Iraq. I’ve work in Baghdad. I’ve worked in Afghanistan. And there’s that gap between
what you see on the ground, the kind of messy violent,
complex messed up kind of place that you see on the ground
in a very sanitised version that people see back
in their homes on their television screens. Is that how it occurred to you?>>It’s not so simple as that. I mean, there’s also
like– you know, like, yeah, there’s bad stuff, but you
know also people live lives. There were kids who
would, you know, be playing soccer or,
you know, football. And, you know, there would be
like people trying to reach out and help each other on both– like, you know, whether local
or, you know, whether it was us as being an occupying force. And it’s– you know, it’s
like– you know, I really can’t, you know, talk about
details all that much. But I mean, if you look at the–
you know, the video, the assault or the– yeah, the
patchy weapons team video from 2007, that’s out there now. You know, it’s– like it’s so much deeper and
more complicated. You see the worst of humanity. But in other moments, you
see like some of the best of humanity like– you know, like if you watch the whole
thing, you see like people, you know, trying to help people. And it’s just so complicated. And I don’t think that there’s–
I’m not one to, you know, break it down so simply.>>Now, for those members of
our audience who weren’t aware of the video, this was an
absolutely shocking video that was filmed from
the apache helicopters, a couple of helicopters that
were asking for permission to open fire on a gathering,
on a meeting in the city. And that meeting also
happened to include a couple of writers, journalists. And we know that–>>Yeah. And nobody would care
if it wasn’t for that because, you know, it was just
business as usual. It’s just another day. There just happened to be more
information about this because, you know, it was journalists. And, you know, unfortunately,
journalists’ lives, you know, have a tendency of being valued
more by the outside world and, you know, everyone else.>>But in this case, what
it also did was draw– well, I guess it must have
inspired you, it made you feel that there was something
that needed to be exposed, and it certainly drew a lot
of attention for the public. That was a big sigh.>>Yeah. It’s just– You know,
it seems so self-evident to me.>>So again, let me
take you forward. I don’t want to dwell too much
on this and I know you want to move forward to the present. But what I do want to do is ask
you about the kind of psychology that was taking place
that you saw the kind of– you mentioned bayesian
statistics in the way that the computer modelling
was influencing the way that the military was operating. Could you just talk us
through that very briefly and explain how it was
that you came to feel that something had to give?>>Well I, think it’s
interesting that– you know, we were doing
computer modelling and spending an awful lot
of time doing this stuff. And, you know, I did
this work, I mean, like 12 hours a day every
single day without a weekend. And, you know, unfortunately,
it wasn’t really– like it was only– the modelling
was only useful whenever it fit within what the command wanted. So if it didn’t fit in that,
it would just– we were just– you know, like our
work was sidelined. So, you know, the– you know, the sense of having an actual
contribution was nothing more than, you know, a political one.>>So– But when we spoke,
you were talking very much about the kind of feedback
loops that were taking place and the kind of the decision
making, is that something that we can talk through?>>I mean, the–
which part of– like– I mean, I can explain the
decision-making process for that kind of thing. It’s– You know,
activity happens in a particular neighbourhood,
and this is the same thing with like policing
here in the US. You know, activity happens. So, a lot of activity
happens that gets reported. So, reports are made
which leads to more US– or police, you know,
police presence in like policing systems. And I’m using policing systems
as an example because many of the military things
are classified, but they’re very analogous to
predictive policing methods. And what happens is you end up
reporting more neighbourhoods in which you have more people
and therefore it starts to– you start to develop hotspots in
which there’s a lot of activity because we keep sending
people there. And it’s very much a feedback
loop that happens where, you know, we intensify our
activities in a location and the responses intensify
and the reporting, you know, becomes more frequent. So, it seems like the hotspot
just gets hotter and hotter. And, you know– And you can
see this and you can model this and you can play with
the numbers to see this. But when you start to do
that– Again, you know, like the computer models are
only helpful for decision makers when it fits within the
decision that they want to make.>>You’ve– We’ll come to that
a little bit more in a minute. But one of the things that
you’ve said since coming out of prison is that the life
that you see here reflects in a lot of ways the kind of
life that you saw in prison. You mentioned what
you’ve said is a world with surveillance and so on. Can you explain that?>>Right. It’s quite clear. Here in the United
States in particular, we live in a domestic
military occupation. Many of our most vulnerable
communities have, you know, police with body armour and
AR-15s policing neighbourhoods, you know, usually people
of colour or immigrants. And, you know, you see– I mean, you see surveillance cameras
everywhere both private and public. And you see, you
know , the intense– And what’s happened is a
mentality of we’re going into a neighbourhood and
we’re not policing yet. We’re– You know, like we’re
patrolling it, you know, has sort of infected, you
know, law enforcement. And then the relationship
between law enforcement and the intelligence
community and the military in recent years, you know, with fusion centres
has blurred the lines to where the police
is now a military and the military is very
much a police force. And those lines just keep
getting blurrier and blurrier. And if you do– I mean if
you go into any neighbourhood in a major city, Oakland,
I’ve seen this in Oakland, I’ve seen this in Brooklyn,
I’ve seen this in Baltimore, I’ve seen this in parts
of Northeast DC, you know, you really start to
see what’s going on. And, you know, you’ll
see police cars that have their lights
flashing for a presence. And they just roll
around neighbourhoods with their lights flashing.>>But Chelsea, but there are
plenty of people who would say that we’re living in a dangerous
environment and the war on terror is going on. Terrorists themselves are
becoming more sophisticated, crime, organised crime is
becoming more sophisticated. Shouldn’t we be using–
Shouldn’t the police be allowed to use, be able to use all
the pieces of technology that they have to keep us safe?>>No, because it
only gets used for– I mean, it keeps getting
used for bad purposes and it slides in this direction. So, either that makes me
think that you can’t– I mean, you can’t
trust government to be benevolent all the time. You know, I think that there is
this assumption especially in, you know, a place
like the United States where there’s been relative
stability for a long period of time, at least
domestically where, you know, like the assumption
is that, oh, you know, the institutes are functioning
and they are, you know, benevolent and they will only
do what they’re supposed to do. But this just isn’t the case. This is not how, you know,
systems like this work. You know, as you increase
the amount of power and the amount of,
you know, authority, dependence on authority
becomes more and more intense, then you start to see
more and more abuse. And the– you know,
the abuse, you know, tends towards authoritarianism. And, you know, system eventually
tends toward really bad things. And, you know, I certainly think
in United States, it’s not– you know, it’s not hyperbole
to say that, you know, there were very much, you know, an act like ethnic
cleansing right now. You look at immigration
and customs enforcement, you look at customs
and border patrol and you see these very
similar techniques, you know, in places that we consider,
you know, dictatorships and authoritarian places. And, you know, it’s just the– it’s the same tendency that we
see where we keep giving up more of these– you know, we
keep giving things up and they just take it and
it gets keeps, you know– it’s just– I always find it
interesting that, you know, the government– you know,
the police say, if you will, the military, the intelligence
community and police agencies in particular, they
never ask for less. They always ask for more. You’ll never hear a politician
say, actually, we need less. We don’t need this
many police officers. We don’t need this many, you
know, like tanks and aircraft. Like this is not– You know, it
doesn’t tend in that direction. It just keeps getting big– Like
United States has the largest and most expensive, you
know, military in the world, almost $700 billion a year. You know, like two years ago,
it was only $550 billion a year. And, you know, we have the
largest prison population in the world by far. We have some of the most intense
police presence in our cities of any country at
all and they’re armed to the teeth in many instances. And, you know, you just–
it’s one thing after another. But it’s never– it’s always
more and they’re always going to be asking for more. And, you know, my
position is that, you know, rather than give some more,
we should stop that and, you know, strongly oppose that. And, you know, you can’t
just reform it anymore. That’s my–>>I want to come to how you
challenge that in a minute. But I do want to ask again
at what point did you start to see the politics of this? What point did you start to
see this is being a problem? Was it back in Iraq? Has it been since you’re
released from prison? At what point did you start to understand the world
in this kind of form?>>Well, I mean, my
first introduction, but I wasn’t really
political was, you know, being homeless for a while. But I would say that, you know,
the passage of Proposition 8 in 2008 like, you know,
at the same time as, you know, Obama was elected.>>Proposition 8 was?>>Oh, yeah. Proposition 8 was a– It
was referendum in the state of California that earlier
that year, there was– you know, marriage
equality had been, you know, made legal through the
court process here. And that was undone
but, you know, that was largely the way
I viewed it but was that, you know, 51 point
something percent of Californian voters vote– you know, voted to
effectively divorce at the time, you know, 11,000 people. And that was a real shock for
me as to my sense of the world. You know, I had been
living under this assumption that history is over and things
are get– always going to, you know, get better and things
are, you know, it was just– it challenged that
and, you know, it really shattered my
understanding of the world, you know, and of
institutions being benevolent because here’s a supposedly
benevolent political process doing something so horrific.>>But there are two things
that come up– arise from that. First of all, that happened
before you went to Iraq, before you joined the military.>>Yes.>>So you went into the military
already questioning the role of authority.>>No. Like that
was– that would– that happened while I was in
my pre-deployment that time. So that was where I
was doing domestic work at the time, mostly
border stuff.>>OK. It then starts
also raises the question, about how you respond to
that because what’s happened since proposition night
is the Supreme Court in the United States has
overturned proposition, the marriage equality
is, you know, gay marriage is possible
in California. Why? What’s wrong
with those systems? Doesn’t that show the
system actually works?>>Well, what is– what
does marriage equality do for queer kids on the
street like I was? What does it do for– because
like we have the height, you know, we have an
astronomical number of queer and trans kids on the streets. And it’s actually
rising, it’s not falling. Since marriage equality,
you know, yes, since– we had a supposed queer and
trans victory, like, you know, trans people in the
military or whatever. Like it’s– when these
things happen it’s not– it’s only affecting a
small portion of people and it’s not really
getting, you know, like– the issue that affect most
queer and trans people that I know are systemic, you
know, it’s heavy policing, it’s the assumption that if
you’re walking while trans that you must be, you know, soliciting for, you
know, sex work. So, you know, like none of these
things can be simply addressed by one court ruling. I mean, I wrote an article at
the time on the day of that– the marriage equality
ruling had passed that– and I basically said like
this, you know, this I feared that we had put all of our
political eggs into this basket and left a whole lot of
our communities behind.>>Let’s talk about
the surveillance state and in particular
surveillance capitalism that you’ve spoken about. Yes, you’re smiling there. This is Facebook, this is–
the Cambridge Analytica story which scraped millions
of the data from millions of Facebook users and then
used that data to target them with political ads to
influence the outcome of the last election. You’re very concerned
about that. You’re very concerned
about the way the big data and algorithms are used. Can you explain what
it is that worries you?>>Well, I mean, this
is business as usual. It’s not, you know, like the–
it’s– The scandal here is that, you know, it wasn’t
really scandalous. Well, you know, like the
Cambridge Analytica actually had what they were doing as
their business model, as their statement, you know, like their mission statement
was effectively doing what they claim to do. And, you know, what happened
with, you know, what’s happening with Facebook and
Twitter is that, you know, they’ve collected a huge
amount of information on people on these social media networks. And, you know, whenever
you’re using a free– You know, whenever you’re
providing your information for free for a free social media
or social networking system, you’re not– it’s
not really for free. You’re actually turning
over something or turning over your personal information which can then be
subsequently sold and used. And like that’s the model
of the system, it’s not– it shouldn’t be shocking at
all that this is happening. It’s not great. I’m not defending it
one bit but it is– These are features not
bugs in the system.>>The question is what
does it mean for our society and is there a way of pushing
back from that, pushing back?>>Yes, there is a
way of pushing back. But it’s not going to come
through, you know, a legislation for court ruling or
anything like that. You know, I think that there’s
an expectation that, you know, because it’s not
an awareness issue. People are aware of this issue. This isn’t an educationist
issue about like what we need to educate people on, you know,
on government surveillance or corporate surveillance or
the abusive large amounts of if, you know, personal information. I think it is– or the manipulation of people
based on that information. I think that we’re
aware of these problems. I think most people are
aware of these problems. It’s learning how to do
something about it and, yeah, there’s no one-size-fits-all
solution to that, but I do think that people need to do
something in response and you can’t just ask a
broken system to fix itself.>>It’s interesting. Denver Nicks who wrote
a book about your case, he said that your
league was the beginning of the information age exploding
upon itself, and he was talking about a new era in which
leaks were a weapon, the data security was–
is of paramount importance and privacy feels illusory. Do you recognise
that description?>>I mean, I do recognise the
description but, you know, I tend not to read about myself.>>But–>>But, yeah, like I don’t–>>– it’s a reflection of what’s happening
is what I’m asking.>>I think, you know,
I– there’s– there– you know, I think it’s a
little hyperbolic up at that– just a little bit
hyperbolic to say that. But, you know, I would certainly
agree that things are trending in that direction and, you
know, we are in a new era. And, you know, this is probably
the most fundamentally shocking advancement since
the printing press.>>As disruptive as
the printing press.>>Even more so. I don’t think that
we are anywhere near. Like I think that
the controversy that we’re having are
just crashing the surface. I think that, you know, when we
look back in 2030 we’ll be like, well, you know, those
issues didn’t seem that bad.>>There’s a [inaudible] running
through the audience, Chelsea, you probably can’t hear it. This– You told the New York
Times in one of the articles that I read, that you
told the New York Times, let’s protect sensitive sources,
let’s protect troop movements, let’s protect nuclear
information. In other words you’re not
about complete transparency. But you did say let’s
not hide new steps, let’s not hide misguided
politics, let’s not hide history,
let’s not hide who we are and what we’re doing.>>Actually, I think that
this is an interesting thing because New York Times
heavily edited that. It’s actually a very
different article from the one that I wrote. [ Applause ]>>What would you have said? What did you want to say?>>I wanted to say
that, you know, first [inaudible]
information was valuable and should be protected. And that, you know, most
things that happen, you know, my sense of government,
you know, secrets and any information
that’s collected is that it always slides
towards being more secretive and it starts off with, well,
it’s just towards sources and methods and it’s just for
this and it’s just for that. But it rapidly slide where
everything is correct. And, you know, I just look at
what’s happening here in the US where huge amounts of domestic
policy now, whether it’s, you know, whether it’s the
use of stingray technology or the use of, you know,
informants and, well, you know, in investigations by the
DEA and by, you know, other law enforcement, I
mean ICE in particular. These are now– every
one of these like minor policing actions
is now viewed through the lens of national security and it just
constantly keeps getting bigger. That list, that list of things that you’re [inaudible]
just gets longer and longer and longer.>>But again, let me put to you
what the critics are saying, and that is that we live in
a time of extreme threat. The war on terror is an
ongoing conflict and in that war on terror we need
to take these kinds of measures to keep us safe.>>Well, I mean whenever
I think about the war on terror I usually view
it from the perspective of everyone else, which is– and
is that where, you know, the– we’re largely being
terrorised by our own states. And you know, like you just see
it like we’re now, you know, you put the security here and you go throughout
the [inaudible]. I can’t tell what’s
going on there. I think I got some static.>>And that wasn’t
static, that was applause.>>OK. I got it. Well, yeah, like you know, this
you look at the security theatre in the airport for instance
and you look at, you know, like having, you know, people in
soldier outfits like everywhere, like this is not, you
know– This is a– This is a vastly
disproportionate response to that, you know, to
the supposed things. These are largely an excuse I
would say for bolstering and, you know, the enforcing,
an array, you know, exploding police, military
and intelligence apparatus. And it’s very profitable,
you know, you make a lot of money off this stuff. And at one point in life
I wanted to make money off of it as a contractor, so.>>Yeah, and I would probably
betray my own politics here but I also think that
what happened to us in Egypt was a part
of that war on terror with national securities
being used as a way of silencing critics. [ Applause ] Chelsea, you have made
a run at politics. You wanted to or you tried
to get a pre-selection for a Senate seat earlier
this year but you lost. Is your Senate — is your
political career over?>>No, and– but
I am more of a– I’m, you know, we
always [inaudible]. You know, I’m more
of an activist and not necessarily politician. So I view most of the work
that I do through that lens. You know, I– while I did
run for Senate, the goal– and actually like I had this sit
down, this long sit down meeting with all the staff that we had
when we started whenever it kind of broke and became a
much bigger news story than we actually
expected it to be. And we got together and
we decided like, OK, like we have a lot
of news attention, we have all these things,
you know, like should– which direction do we go in? We’re at a crossroads here. Do we, do we try to, you know–
We try to get elected, you know, and do all of the
things like, you know, the flow like the focus
groups and trying to fit within this criteria of what,
you know, a voter, you know, what this particular type of
voter might be interested in. Or do we want to stick
to our principles and have an actual
platform that we believe in, and we chose the latter.>>And let me– let me just,
let me just run through some of the policy, some of the– some of the things that
were on your platform. You said close prisons
and free inmates?>>Yes, shall– you
know [inaudible].>>Eliminate national
borders, restructure–>>I mean– Not– I mean, like
I didn’t say eliminate them but certainly dramatically
decrease the amount of, you know, policing that and that
happens at them where, you know, you’re building border walls
and, you know, guard towers and there’s huge amounts of,
you know, regulations that, you know, you encounter. And you know, I always,
you know, I always– like I get nervous when
I’m crossing over borders and I know a lot of people
who don’t have the history that I have that, you know,
feel the same way and– yeah.>>You wanted to restructure
the criminal justice system, provide universal
health [inaudible].>>No, no.>>No?>>I mean, restructure is–>>It’s a big–>>– probably a
[inaudible] word for it.>>OK. What would it be? What’s the word you’d use?>>I mean, the time for
reform was like 40 years ago, like we can’t– we
can’t reform anymore.>>This– It’s a big
manifesto and I guess that fits the title
of today’s session. Chelsea Manning wants
to change the world.>>Yeah, it’s a bit hyperbolic. I wouldn’t know, I
wouldn’t get that. That was you all. [ Laughter ]>>Chelsea, I’m going to ask
one more question before we go to audience questions and
that is looking at in a lot of ways you’ve become a kind
of ink blot test for people, the people on the left, see was
something of a hero as almost as a secular matter, I think
as someone put it as someone who stands up for
openness and transparency for transgender rights,
for prisoners– prison reform and so on. And on the right,
you’re seen as a traitor, as someone who betrayed the–
betrayed your own country. I know the truth is always going to be far more complex
than that. Where do you fit
into that spectrum?>>I mean, what I’ve
encountered is not that at all. I think what’s going on
here is that, you know, you have large numbers of
people who don’t have any say and don’t have any power and
don’t, you know, and, you know, they’re sort of the lesser
classes of people versus people in positions of authority
and positions of power. And you don’t hear
these things coming out of the average
person on the street. And yeah, I walk the streets
largely unmolested like no and I just have to deal with,
you know, people running up and asking me for selfies. It’s not, you know, it’s not
what I think you know the– you know, like people like the
CIA director and the secretary of state and the, you know, and
the president want, you know. So, I think that it’s a
divergence in people in power and people not in power
is where this lies, not necessarily left
versus right.>>All right. [ Applause ] — and that’s not
static again, by the way.>>Yeah, I think you’re there.>>All right, if we can
have the house lights up. I think we’ll come to
audience questions. We have four microphones. Anyone that has a
question, I’d ask you to move to one of microphones. I’ll give you a moment or two. And it looks as though
we’ve got a couple of people up by microphone 4 up in
the back corner there, if we can have microphone 4. And if you– and before
I– before you say– I would urge you
please, could everyone– I am going to be fairly,
fairly strict about this, if you could please make
sure that you ask a question. We don’t– We only
have limited time. And please make it
as brief as you can. Thanks.>>Chelsea, thank you so much. It’s such a pleasure to
witness you here today. It’s a real tonic for the soul. My question is has
there ever been a day that you’ve regretted
leaking what you did in the way that you did it?>>I get asked this
question a lot but this [inaudible] answer is, is that I don’t relitigate
every– You know, I’m not going to go
back and, you know, try to, you know, like go
through every single thing that could have happened
because it– everything happens the way
it happened because they’ll, you know, like that’s– That
was the information I had at the time that was available. The resources [inaudible]
which were limited at the time, and if I had made
any other decisions, I mean would I really be me? [ Applause ]>>Thank you. Microphone 2.>>Hi, Chelsea, you’re–>>Hey.>>– looking– you’re
looking very impressive on a 15 to 20-foot high video screen
here, by the way, in the hall. I have to see you in person–>>OK.>>– some time. I just wanted to–
looking very nice. I just wanted to ask you
very famously you snuck out the information on
a Lady Gaga CD, I think, and I’m assuming “Born
This Way”, the track is– like that sentiment is
very important to you. I’m just wondering, are
those kind of musical icons, were they very important in you finding your
true gender identity and maybe feeling a sense of
injustice to persecuted people that may be led to the decision
you made in terms of, you know, wanting to release
that information to protect the people from
being hurt in the future.>>I mean, I think it’s
just a stroke of sheer luck that that was– that was what
I was looking to at the time, you know, that could have easily
just [inaudible] back then Taylor Swift or Kesha. Yeah, there’s not a whole
lot of depth that I– just, you know, an
incident of the moment.>>Right. If we can go
back to microphone 4, sir.>>Yes. Thank you, Peter,
and thank you, Chelsea, for an interesting talk. I am Simon Levett at
Western Sydney University and a PhD candidate. You briefly, I believe, referred
to the fact that journalists in conflict zones are singled out for special protection,
am I right? I was wondering if you
could talk a little bit about your experiences with journalists while
in Iraq and Baghdad. Thank you.>>They were nonexistent. As soon as the– as soon
as Obama got elected, largely embedded reporter
numbers dropped in almost– almost instantaneously. So at any one time, I think that
the count that we had according to the PIO brief
was between three and four embedded reporters
in the entirety of Baghdad. And also like there
is the relationship of better reporters versus,
you know, like other reporters where embedded reporters get
all these special protections but they also are restricted
[inaudible] variable to access and the things that
they’re able to write because they can
arbitrarily have that removed and they don’t have– There’s
actually been court rulings where– in the United
States where they’re– you know, embedded reporting is
not considered a First Amendment protected activity. It can be arbitrarily
removed for any– It doesn’t necessarily have–
or it can be no reason at all. It can just be at the whim
of a commander in the field.>>Microphone 2.>>Yeah. Hello. Chelsea, my name is Brandon and I’m definitely
not a PhD candidate. I’m just a regular bloke.>>Like me.>>So thanks for hearing me. I want to circle. I was really interested about
your comments about the hotspots in Iraq becoming hotter
spots and almost that due to the activity of applying more
surveillance and more military and heating up the place. And then you made some
comments later on about America and the activities
there being hotspots and then militarising the police and those spots becoming
hotter spots and obviously America
has got, you know, one of the largest incidences
of mass shootings in the world, yet you’ve got one of the
biggest armed police forces in the world, so– And then
you’ve gone on further to say that we’re well beyond
the point of reform. What’s the solution? How do we– How do
we back out of this? I mean, obviously,
you know, to– turning this into a war
ourselves is essentially playing them at their own game. What’s the solution to driving
that backwards if [inaudible]?>>Oh, you know, we have to
start doing things ourselves and the way– You know,
it’s quite simple. Every action that we do and
every decision that we make is in a sense a political decision. You know, going vegan is a
political decision and also like not doing something
at all, you know, is essentially a
political decision. Apathy is a political decision
that you’re actively ignoring, you know, something, you
know, so you really have to be engaged, you have to
be involved, and you know, there’s way more, you know,
what we rule as, you know, we have a lot more political
agency than just, you know, putting in a ballot
into a box or, you know, signing a petition or, you know,
going to a protest with science and counting and, you
know, things like that. There– We have a lot more
political agency for that and you know– and
every single situation with every single person
is going to be different. Obviously, I was in a particular
position that, you know, differs from somebody
on the street but we both have the
ability to make a difference in a political difference. It just we have to find– We have to find that way
in which we can do it but you have– really have to be paying attention
in order to do that. And this isn’t just for individuals,
it’s for communities. I mean, communities can come
together and make decisions. And one of the things that I
always– that I found during– it was actually during my
run here at the US was that, you know, communities know
exactly what they need. They don’t need somebody telling
them, hey, here’s the solutions that I am– proposed
for your community. Really, they already
know what the issues are. They are– And they already
know what the solutions are. And you know, I think
that most of the solutions that we have these problems can
actually be solved by, you know, by communities coming together
and solving them themselves. And not expecting, you
know, massive, you know, government to think, you know, to try to maybe give them
some [inaudible] thing. I think that, you know,
that’s sort of an approach that I have is more of a–
more of a bottom-up approach than a top-up approach
or top-down approach.>>Thank you. [ Applause ]>>Up in the back quick,
microphone 3, please.>>My name is Alex and I work
for Amnesty International. When we do finally get you
here, what are you most excited to see and do in Australia?>>Oh, good question. All right. I really want to go to the
western part and I don’t know, see some beaches and stuff.>>Chelsea’s in California
at the moment by the way and saw the beaches.>>Yeah, and it’s
summer here too.>>Which is not where you want
to do when you’re here then. Quick, microphone 2, sir.>>Hello, Chelsea Manning. My name is Cameron
Strauss [assumed spelling] and I just want to say the
fact that I get to speak to you right now I can
say a big, big honour. I just also want to
just quickly mention that my former local member of parliament was
actually David Coleman, who was the immigration
minister so I just want to– just want to let you know that. I’m going to be– I promise that
I’m just going to be campaigning so hard again out of
the next election. Support Chris David, everyone. He’s an absolute
legend, just saying.>>All right, your
question, sir.>>But my actual
question was I’m– You’re talking about what policy
platform you were campaigning for within your–
with your campaign. So like universal healthcare,
demilitarising the police, abolishing ICE, that
sort of stuff. Bernie Sanders also supports
a lot of similar policies, and it’s very likely
he’s going to run in the next Democratic primary. If he does, will
you support him?>>I tend not to
make those kinds of decisions ahead of time. I certainly will– I
certainly take the time to make that assessment as to who I vote
for in any election, you know. But I can’t say– you know,
I’m not going to before that even get like out there because people do
change their position. And I have no idea, like we’re– We haven’t even had our midterm
elections here at the west, so I’m hesitant to jump so
far ahead and I’m, you know– And I’ve got to say that I
think that the midterm election in the US is probably not
going to turn out the way that the rest of the
world thinks they are.>>Thank you very much.>>Do you want to
elaborate on that?>>I just get the– I get the
sense that there’s two country, there’s a very isolated,
you know, set of city– coasts that differ very
significantly from the middle of the country like the
midwest in particular and the mountainous
regions and the deep south. And, you know, like
obviously, you know, like there’s the notion of
things being red versus blue, but it’s actually much deeper
than that because the red versus blue is, you know, often a 5% difference
in the population. But in terms of how these
different places view the world, they think what differs
significantly. I think that certainly
establishment people, power and media think that they
are in control and, you know, that their opinions are widely
respected and widely held. But if you go out of the
cities, you don’t find that. You find that most people
are sceptical and completely and largely ignore, you know,
talking heads on TV or do the– or believe the opposite. So, I think that’s
what’s going on is where– so, the way that the outside– you know, and not necessarily
rural areas, but the way that– you know, like outside
of Washington DC, outside of New York,
outside of Los Angeles, outside of San Francisco,
the way that that part of the country views itself
and views its position.>>OK. Microphone 3.>>Chelsea, I’m Elaine. I’m from actually China here
as an international student. So, you haven’t got
a visitor visa here.>>You got lucky.>>Thank you. So, you [inaudible] Australia. But in China, just literally
no news talking about you, and we literally– now VPN is–
become more and more difficult. We don’t even have the chance
to visit Twitter or Facebook. So, could you provide us
some advice on how to deal with this kind of situation
and how to release such kind of stress and anxiety facing
this kind of situation in our country as a person who
really cared about these kind of social issues and
to keep our self safe and to keep our self ourselves.>>Right. [ Applause ] On the technical front, you
know, there’s a tool Tor. The Tor Project spends a
lot of time trying to get– to develop, you know, bridges
so that way certain countries that have more restrictive
internet connexions, you know, are able to transfer information
like to and from those, and that’s a constant sort
arms race process especially in China, but the tool is
available and it’s still– it’s a lot more robust of a tool than virtual private
networks are. And on the more political
front, you know, it’s going to largely depend
not on the outside world but, you know, on– you know,
what happens within China. And I think that control
of the flow of information by the central state
does not necessarily mean that there aren’t other
communication channels. I think that obviously people
have throughout history been, you know, like working
through whisper networks and having close
relationships that, you know, transcend like a
little bit further out of their areas, you know. Family members move
and, you know, information flows
and things like that. So, I’m going to say that
I do believe that many of these things can be
transcended just by human nature and not necessarily
by technology.>>All right. Microphone 2, sir.>>Hi. My name is Peter. I’m from a group called
Intelligent Democracy, and that’s maybe something
that’s hard to believe, but it can be done in Australia. But that aside– I’ll show
you the model sometime folks. That aside, would you
encourage Peter Greste to become a politician
because there’s a bunch of us who think it’d be very good?>>No. I mean, I think
it’s a wrong idea.>>Yesterday, well,
I’m with you Chelsea. I’m sorry. But thank you very
much for that.>>Yeah. I mean, like I’m
just saying personally, like it is not something you– I want to explain
that a little bit. You know, I had to stand– You know, I went canvassing
out in certain neighbourhoods and I had to knock on peoples’
doors and introduce myself and basically opened myself up
to them, and people are very, very brave in their own
home at the front door. And so, they ask
really tough questions and they tell you these
incredible and amazing stories and heartbreaking stories
and like inspiring stories. And then, they ask
you a question. And often, it’s a very
difficult question that– you know, that oftentimes I had
never even thought of before. And from what I understand,
you know, most professional politicians
usually have like a pamphlet or some robotic answer,
but I couldn’t tell them. I couldn’t, you know, give
people a bullshit answer. It was– I just couldn’t do it,
and that was the hardest part of the whole thing was– and it actually wore me
down quite a bit was– you know, like being asked
these really tough questions and not having an answer, but
also being unwilling to pretend like I did have an answer. [ Applause ]>>Chelsea, that seems like a
fantastic place to wrap it up. We have–>>Sorry.>>We would all love more. The clock, yeah, the clock
is against us, the clock. Thank you ladies and gentlemen. I would love to– I
would absolutely love to make this– to extend this. I’m going to get dragged off the
stage if I continue any longer as the clock kicks– ticks
down to 6, 5, 4 seconds left. So, thank you very much.>>Thank you.>>Thank you so much. [ Applause ]>>Thank you all. [ Applause ]>>You probably can’t
see Chelsea that we have a standing ovation.>>Yeah, I can’t see it. [ Applause ]

  1. If Chelsea Manning is "not of good character" then neither was Jesus Christ. The only mistake Manning made was trusting a rat. Translation: A scumbag who informs on a person who exposes sanctioned war crimes, including serial torture. Are war criminals people of "good character?" America's allies seem to think they are, because said monsters haven't spent a second in the can. Have Reuters complained about the murder of their journalists, who were blown to bits by Apache helicopter cannon shells… They've said sod all because they're basically gutless! Some serial killers don't get criticised because said critics just might get falsely accused. Then rendered to a black sight. That's the Orwellian world we live in now.

  2. The terrorists we most need to worry about are all governments, and most large corporations!!!

  3. Chelsea and Julian are truth tellers and are the peoples heroes we have to fight the injustices happening around us by fascist right wing criminal governments!!!!

  4. What is his real name again? He's a guy right? I thought a guy was busted for helping WikiLeaks. Is that the same person?


  6. Once all alternitive medai is finnaly banned online this will be our last resort. However, it can also be utilized in the meantime as well. Very powerful form of advertising to get a message out to the public.


    "Guerrilla Marketing Techniques"

  7. There was a dream once , free men fought and died for this dream , from there struggle from that day to this the dream is still beating in the hearts of free men , what is this dream that all free men strive for , Freeeedoooom , " Death to the new world disorder , free men are now being forced to hold to the Dream , we shall have War or we shall have our Freedom , mankind will rise we have the numbers and most importantly we have the Love of Jesus in our hearts , we all need to fight for the dream …. Proud Boys Unite ….

  8. Was Manning a UCE tasked with trying to bring down Julian? Investigative reporter George Webb at TruthLeaks @GeorgWebb devotes a lot of time on his YouTube channel to the reasons why some believe that.

  9. Assange needs to be freed. Didn't hear anything exceptional here unfortunately but am glad he is not going to turn on Assange & that is admirable considering the pressure from the US(c).

  10. Sick! Manning couldn't attend for "not beeing a good character"??? Seriously??? That is just a persons two cents. What on earth make her/him right in that evaluation? Just wondering….stupid. But that is the elite…. They control everything…. Honor to Mannings for doing the right thing. Good job, hun. Last but not least… FREE JULIAN ASSANGE!!!! Both him and Mannings have served the world. Kudos to the both of you!

  11. Well done Chelsea for exposing these government criminals…. Free minds know the truth. The tide will turn… if not already…. Free Assange – the world needs more people who are not afraid to expose those who abuse the power entrusted upon them.

  12. Makes it really obvious looking at her that Claire Danes is also a tranny, only a secret one. Which is abhorrent because that's cheating

  13. Bravest American Patriot living in the present day. WILL GO TO JAIL for what she believes in. Into SOLITARY CONFINEMENT to keep her principles. Standing up to secret grand juries and a corrupt gov.

  14. Disturbing that no one commented on her recent incarceration without charges. But the good news is that she has been released despite refusing to speak. This woman is a true hero. May we take her good example and not crumble before power. If not for ourselves then for others and those who follow us. Remember that the rights that we take for granted were fought for by those who risked difficulty, injury and death for the sake of others.

  15. Chelsea Manning with WikiLeaks stole all of that information and whether it's true or not, that is against the law! Julian Assange and along with Chelsea Manning and all of their cohorts should all be thrown in jail! WikiLeaks had plenty of e-mails from the Republican platform but only released info. and e-mails from the Democrats and that's one of many occasions where WikiLeaks lost all credibility! When WikiLeaks chose to release info. in order to influence an election, that’s where they crossed the line! I wonder how many of you Assange or Manning lovers would feel the same way if they hacked into your e-mails or did this against you? Julian Assange is a snake and Chelsea Manning should still be in jail!

  16. Free Chelsea Manning Now ! She has a very well sorted and intelligent mind ! I am very fond of her ! I just love her ! Free Chesea Mannin and Julian Assange !

  17. There are tens of thousands of illegally arrested and illegally prosecuted and illegally sentenced or illegally and indefinitely detained in Max Sec. Prisons in Turkey, working over-Capacity, at least 150 Turkish Journalists are already in Prison and at least as many are in exile. I'm one of those hostages. What Mr. Assange, Ms Chelsea Manning, Mr Edward Snowden are and shall be the TRAIL BLAZERs for Freedom of Expression and precedent to major Human Rights grassroots movement GLOBALLY! COMPUTER SCIENCE ROCKS. YOU cannot beat MATH! Her biji Julian Assange.

  18. Sorry, Manning I just don't feel the same way you do about closing prison's and opening up our borders

  19. Communist fascists running Norway’s teacher academies. View their aggression when exposed:

  20. Outstanding!
    Folks; I'm ex-Marine ('73-'78…)!
    Semper Fi!
    Chelsea is taking the blame & shame, for the dereliction-of-duty of all "superiors"!
    Like Ed, you, and too many others, jumping the entire Chain-of-command, to inform "we", has provoked and inspired change toward "We"!
    You're dead on, with the localized, contingencies management systems and neighborhood incident management, perspectives!
    Check this out: I know you'll perceive the potential & possibilities.
    Plug DES-S to DES!
    [Disaster and Emergency Services…. Support! ]
    As the secondaries!
    Note: Ex-military… = built in – respected foundation!
    Note: …1776…
    =to gather together, frequently, at the same place & same time… To really get to know each other…
    For contingencies management & commerce & politics & training & polling & leadership nominations & theologies & security assignments & surveys & demos-kratos…!!!
    Bring it into a 21st century context!!!
    These are the core of the system, since it's locked into us, already! …
    Try this! ?
    = at your next huge gathering… Call the room the military "attention! " (if they can.) Make it spontaneous!
    Have folks look around.
    These folks give "We", a 4th Branch back-bone, instantly…
    Have some fun…
    =USMC / USA / USN / USAF….. Officers… Staff… NCOs
    Admin… Liaison… Logistics… Intell… Operations…
    Bottom up nominated leadership!
    Think Swiss!!!
    =A well regulated [active and passive, contingencies management systems], being necessary to the [national security posture] of a free state, the right [to get mean, and unfringed!] …
    Note: = "sanctions"
    If absent, late, or not properly equipped!
    ="demos-kratos" was technically "enforced"
    … Through universal service?
    = back then.
    ="civil-defense" !!! To now!
    =a phasing cycle… =
    =…mitigation… preparedness… response… recovery… Through an "integrated" system, including all sectors!
    = private… public… government..
    It's the system you're looking for!

    I believe Lady Liberty holds you in high esteem, Chelsea!
    Thanks, for telling me things I needed know!
    I know your war!
    Honor forces a hand!
    Be of good cheer.
    Truth seems to act, like high voltage, which forces through any line it can, until it can slap the fool at the point of grounding out… Where shame and blame belongs.
    Truth burned a path through you, but your sense of honor held firm, giving that truth a home, in "We"!!!

  21. This guy Manning is like the dude on m.a.s.h who was trying to get out of the army by cross dressing. 🤦🏼‍♂️

  22. I’ve watched this a number of times and it becomes sadder every time. What has happened to us as Australian’s that this can happen. The media is complicit. Thank goodness there are still good people able to get this message out.
    Chelsea is amazing! No wonder Julian and her were drawn together. Kindred spirits

  23. What the US government want is blatantly obvious: They want Chelsea to give false evidence against Julian in a star chamber. Chelsea does not approve of Spanish Inquisition injustice. She's been tried already for disclosing classified materials and has served her time for it. Julian is NOT a US citizen and therefore cannot be convicted of treason. It's a, 'Truth in an empire of Lies' situation. Read 1984 by George Orwell. (Chelsea will not rat,) live with it CIA Grand Inquisitors… Message to the US government: Stop slaughtering Journalists and kids on the street, follow the Geneva Conventions and stop torturing suspected enemy combatants. Stop waging war for oil. Stop bad mouthing world leaders to justify said war crimes.

  24. Mr heminger
    I am 68 yrs old
    Have a degree
    Have traveled
    Lived interstate
    Know a wide range
    Of people left centre
    And right wing those
    Who travel those who
    Don't travel,schooled
    In convents lived in
    Poverty with my siblings
    And my distressed
    Mother who was deserted
    By our father in a time of no
    Single parent pension

  25. Why why why do we need to keep on about transgender rights, gay&lesb rights. They ram it down our throats at every opportunity. What does it matter what there sexual preference is. Why do we need to know. Most heterosexual people already know by the way they speak or body language. Just get on with it and stop going on about it. There is more to life than being recognised as this section or that section of people. Your all over the top with it and I don't think it's right. There's no gain in ramming it down our throats you will make people homophobic with this nonsense. Why not just focus on being a good human being and living by a good code of conduct. If you want to enter into politics do it under whatever name you want we don't need labels on people. Or people to be recognised for their sexualalty it should be for what they offer as a person. Sick of it. There are bigger things to discuss than gender rights. What about us humans devastating our planet to the point of 200 species a day being made extinct. Cause nothing else will matter once this happens. Social issues are way down the list.

  26. The gov. & contractors have been experimenting <destroying lives & killing the people for years covering it up , they brought nazies in to gov. , Time for truth & justice

  27. 20:35 “you can’t trust government to be benevolent all the time”…”this just isn’t the case”…you begin to see more and more abuse…tends toward authoritarianism.


  29. I'm leaving now at 18 seconds and I just wanted to make the comment that I made I have no desire to listen to a fake woman talk thank you bye

  30. We are moving towards a Police state, right wing fear influencing our society and reduced whistle blowing with prison sentences!! It has happened in Australia now, we do NOT have full freedom of speech i.e. you challenge the status quo you can be crushed Politically and by main stream media ;/

  31. Dutton retains his seat in parliament, and Journalist gets raided by the Feds over the leaks exposing his desire for extended surveillance powers………. Curse you blinded conservative voters for condemning this country to his shenanigans AGAIN

  32. The Deep State and the Shadow Government have become super strong and totally uncontrollable during the last 3 presidencies. Please stand your ground. Freedom of Speech, and Freedom of the Press are essential to a democracy.

  33. I have no idea how this got into my view history. Must have fallen asleep with my headset on. Not into the political side of things.

  34. Amazing people who know what is going on. It is governments who cause the problems in this world because they carry out the orders of their puppet masters.

  35. She?Lol…the world is fkg delusional. Does "she" have a uterus? Does "she" ovulate ? Does She have a Birth Canal..No No and No. You're All insane.

  36. She sounds enlightened. People who went through a lot in life sometimes acquire an incredible amount of insight into things, on the edge of mysticism, or knowing way beyond simple intelligence. A beautiful human being.

  37. Chelsea has strong character and dynamic perspective, truly appreciated. One thing I would bend her ear on would be the funding difference between federal and state is vastly different. From MMT reports we learn that big, programs are funded by Congress, through fiat $, not tax revenue. True, state knows it's needs better, and there should be a trickle up tax funding, especially since the multiplication of 50 states is so expansive, compared to dividing what is appropriated by 50 states. Thus, if each state had it's own soverign currency, the programs could be more easily managed, but this isn't the case.

  38. Bradley Manning's is not Chelsea Manning's. He is a dude and will always be known as a dude. He is a disgrace to us men. I have been saying this for years all transgender have mental health problems

  39. Truth, as MALE acting like female He beat up a Military Female, he disobeyed orders, was seen as mentally unstable. And you give IT a platform. No one's being fooled here. Fa G

  40. Brilliant interview. I think Chelsea embodies the struggle of the modern and intelligent young white man; in a world that is engineered against their very identity and existence. BTW, the volume disparity between Chelsea and the interviewer was very annoying.

  41. It's really exhausting when even your friends and supporters deadname you. It's extremely insulting and abusive.

  42. Looking, and sounding great Chelsea!

    Like Julian (Assange…, duh?), to me at least, You're a 'God', err? a 'Goddess' for your 'Ethical Strength'!
    An Immortal!

  43. What does Chelsea mean by ‘Queer’ please? She interchanges Queer and trans. I am assuming this is the ‘Q’ in ‘LGBTQ’ isn’t it?


  45. keep on having impression that Chelsea and interviewer try, but cannot get on same 'planet' as it were.

  46. 🆓🆓🆓🆓🆓Julian Assange ❤️🧡💛💚💙💜🆓🆓🆓🆓🆓Chelsea MANNING👏💕💞💗💖♥️💜💙💚💛🧡 🆓🆓🆓🆓🆓🆓🆓💖💖💖💞💕👏👏👏👏👏

  47. from Wiki [ironic]…..""David Moulton, a Navy forensic psychiatrist who saw Manning after the arrest, said Manning had narcissistic traits, and showed signs of both fetal alcohol syndrome and Asperger syndrome. He said that, in leaking the material, Manning had been "acting out [a] grandiose ideation"….why is anyone hanging on Manning's words?

  48. I really didn't know a lot about Manning, but watching this, it's all over the place and I can't make head nor tales of what's being said. It seems to be a jumble of this and that. I don't find Manning very well spoken, I'm sorry, my opinion. These interviews should not go on as if everyone watching knows the story. I had to stop watching.

  49. Thank you, Chelsea, for giving this great talk. We all love you so much and root for you each day! 🙂

  50. Leaking info in a time of war is punishable up to death according to the ucmj. This tranny snitch got off easy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *