The United States may soon have the opportunity to request the extradition of WikiLeaks leader Julian Assange to its shores, which would allow criminal proceedings against him to finally begin.

Given his focused mission to cause momentous damage to the United States by disclosing secret and highly classified information, prosecution would be totally justified.

Lets put this in context.

I am a strong supporter of exposing government corruption and wrongdoing. I also believe whistleblowers are the appropriate mechanism of last resort for accomplishing that goal.

But theres a process whistleblowers must follow. It may not be perfect, but it allows abuses to be identified without compromising national security interests.

Whistleblowers in the intelligence community, including those working in the Defense Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency, have such paths outlined in a precise manner.

The process allows for the exposure of corruption while protecting classified information and ensuring that whistleblowers do not face retaliation. This is a balanced approach that protects all parties.

Those who operate outside of the process Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, the recent leakers at the CIA and those who leaked the information on former National Security Adviser Mike Flynn are criminals. They broke the law and blatantly ignored the avenues established for whistleblowers.

Manning was accordingly charged and convicted. Snowden, still hiding abroad, should be tried and convicted. The more-recent leakers must be, too.

These leakers all assumed roles well beyond their job descriptions. They perceived themselves as singularly possessing the authority and the judgment to determine right and wrong and, in turn, jeopardized the security of the country not to mention their colleagues.

Assange is no different. While he may not have actually physically stolen information, Assange has claimed possession of stolen materials and published them for the world to see. His public comments and actions clearly outline his motives and desire to fundamentally damage the West, the United States in particular.

There will be thousands of pages of legal debate written about Assange. The back-and-forth will focus on whether his actions constitute a new type of newsgathering and are thereby sheltered free speech.

Theyre clearly not, though, and he ought to be tried and found guilty.

Moving forward, Congress must strengthen whistleblower protections, direct our intelligence agencies to better secure sensitive and classified data, and put in place a modern legal framework to prosecute those who leak and make available classified information. These measures will ultimately protect the United States and its citizens from traitors and individuals seeking its demise.

A former chairman of the U.S. House intelligence committee, Pete Hoekstra is a senior fellow at the Investigative Project on Terrorism.

Go here to see the original:
Yes: Assange willfully set out to destroy the West, should face punishment - Arizona Daily Star

The U.S. government has been very public about its concern for national cybersecurity. There have been grandiose speeches, presidential declarations and several attempts by the legislature to pass new cybersecurity laws. But the problem with America's national cybersecurity strategy is bigger than one-off hacks or data thefts. Crimes perpetrated by the likes of Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning and the individual(s) who committed the alleged leak of the CIA's highly sensitive cyber warfare tools have resulted in mind-blowing losses.

Beyond those headline grabbers is a problem that gets less attention but poses a significant risk to critical national assets: the fact that private sector businesses operate -- but do not adequately protect -- a vast majority of the nation's critical infrastructure and data.

The federal government, and even the largest private sector enterprises, spend billions on cybersecurity investment but fail to extend those efforts into the SMBs that do much of the legwork. Laws are passed that promise to protect sensitive government information and "critical" systems, but the regulations are fine-tuned to work for the business community, effectively neutering enforcement mechanisms. Until there are real ramifications for cybersecurity failures in government and private sector entities that support the government, we will continue to see national security erode.

Private companies should be responsible for the public interest and implement precautions to minimize security failures that potentially undermine national defense.

Consider, for example, the fallout from a 2013 report that found designs for some of the most sensitive, advanced U.S. weapons systems were hacked by a foreign country. Although it is a serious issue that those weapons systems are now compromised and have likely been duplicated by at least one foreign military, there is no sign of any punishment for the private companies that allowed the theft in the first place. In fact, the companies and their subcontractors that made the stolen systems will ultimately benefit from the espionage: There are a limited number of prime contractors that can perform this work, so the companies from which the systems were stolen will most likely build any replacement systems, if they have not already done so. There is no evidence that the contractors have lost work or otherwise paid for their failure. Until the cost of failure is higher than implementing real security technology, we will continue to see poor choices that lead us to cybersecurity failure.

I first wrote about the potential for a digital D-Day in 2005, then again in 2012. In the years since, we have sadly not come very far in advancing cyber protection of our most important systems. We are still allowing the private sector to decide what assets are critical and how they should protect them. This is true even where their product, service or infrastructure has a direct role in our national cybersecurity strategy and the U.S. government's operational continuity.

Private companies should be responsible for the public interest and implement precautions to minimize security failures that potentially undermine national defense. Cybersecurity professionals who falsely attest to security should be held accountable in the same way business executives are held accountable when their companies violate financial regulations.

But the reality is that the lack of resources within private companies, combined with no serious government enforcement, lead to little constructive action. As long as the U.S. continues to accept the lowest bids and/or sole-source providers in government contracting without serious consideration for their cyber hygiene, we will not see change.

In defense of the contractors, I do believe companies should be able to include burdensome security expenses when submitting bids. Security should be rewarded as a competitive advantage and in the interest of national security.

But if a bidder is found to have not initiated the protections they attested to, they should be penalized. How is a failure to protect U.S. national secrets by not meeting minimum cybersecurity requirements, and, in some cases, committing blatant willful neglect, not considered criminal negligence?

Under International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) one can get a decade in prison for unlawfully exporting defense technology. Punishments for export violations range from criminal penalties of "up to $1 million per violation and up to 10 years in prison" and for civil violations "seizure and forfeiture of articles, revocation of exporting privileges" with fines of up to $500,000 per violation. One Tennessee professor received 14 months in prison for "exporting military technology" when he taught foreign students about information that the professor didn't even know was protected. In his case, the prosecuting Assistant U.S. Attorney said, "Prison time is appropriate to avoid the appearance of a mere slap on the wrist for so serious of an offense involving national security." A mere accident on the part of this professor is a severe crime in the eyes of the government, but a cyber breach that results in dozens of our most important weapons system being stolen results in no action? We should treat willful neglect of cybersecurity hygiene that results in national security breaches by foreign countries as export violations as well.

As a cybersecurity professional, I know there is no such thing as foolproof cybersecurity: Perfection is not achievable, and even a great defensive posture may not be enough against a determined actor. Organizations are all challenged with the cost and distraction of cybersecurity requirements, but may not be doing enough because, frankly, they just do not feel compelled to make a real effort when it comes to cybersecurity.

For example, some organizations are under such tight pricing constraints that realistic security measures are just not possible. In order to survive, these organizations must gamble on this lack of security and hope they are never a target for hacking, or even audited. Other organizations are simply woefully uneducated on their security obligations, and still others sincerely try to understand these obligations but still do not succeed.

By design, U.S. cybersecurity laws and regulations are ambiguous and flexible. This flexibility, while intended to make it easier for organizations to comply, really makes it that much harder by not spelling out, in clear terms, what private sector organizations actually must do. We must insist that private sector companies work toward becoming secure, and then assist them when taking the necessary steps to help further the national cybersecurity strategy.

While I do not propose rushing into actions haphazardly, we must not just keep planning. We should start by:

With each administration there is a renewed commitment and refreshed cybersecurity directives that result in nothing of consequence. There has been a renewed cybersecurity focus as foreign actors show their cards, so it is time that we do something impactful. The bottom line is we are running out of time before cybersecurity threats to our critical infrastructure result in an actual catastrophic attack. The time for action is now.

More on national cybersecurity strategy:

Ask the Expert: How has the FITARA law influenced U.S. cybersecurity?

After government breaches, Pentagon cybersecurity under fire

Secret Service audit reveals cybersecurity flaws

Read more:
Private sector's national cybersecurity strategy contributions lacking - TechTarget

Chelsea Manning appears in the current episode of Amnesty International's "In Their Own Words" podcast, voiced by actor Michelle Hendley.

Chelsea tells us, "The awesome thing about this podcast is that Michelle Hendley speaks in my own voice, telling my story and memories in my own words and in my own style. It's the closest thing to actually interviewing me as we could possibly get, given the rules of the prison. I was able to listen to it on the phone by having it played from laptop speakers into a friend's cell phone, and I think she sounds like me."

At Amnesty, were calling on US authorities to free Chelsea immediately.

She is spending decades in prison because she shared information that she thought could shed a light on potential abuses and prompt meaningful public debate on the conflict. Prevented from using this in her defence at her tribunal and overcharged as a warning to others, Chelsea has been punished over the odds for actions.

Meanwhile, the US government has not investigated the abuses she exposed while Chelsea has paid a high price for putting that information in the public realm.

Chelsea Manning, in her own words [Amnesty International]

Another amazing Shmoocon talk is Users Are People Too: How to Make Your Tools Not Suck for Humans, presented by two key people from Simply Secure, a nonprofit devoted to improving security tool usability (I am a volunteer advisor to Simply Secure).

Laura Poitras is the Macarthur-winning, Oscar-winning documentarian who made Citizenfour. Her life has been dogged by government surveillance and harassment, and she has had to become a paranoid OPSEC ninja just to survive.

Real engineers build things. Super cool engineers build things with their hands and fingers, like our engineering forefathers did. No idea where to even begin to do that? This step by step Arduino course is now 92% off and is going to get you up and running, from zero to hero, in no time. So []

How do Google and YouTube really work? It turns out, Python kind of runs things around those parts. And with this bootcamp, youll get whipped into shape and ready to start programming yourself. Whether youre a Python pro and just want to sharpen your skills, or a total tech newbie with little or no coding []

Take a deep breath. Now exhale. Wouldnt that whole breathing thing be a lot better with an amazing vape in your hands? How about a vape thats specifically engineered and designed for dry leaf and crazy easy to both use and clean? You can save 28% right now when you nab this new FEZ Vaporizer []

See the rest here:
Listen: Chelsea Manning speaks to Amnesty International's ...

Whistleblower. Traitor. Transwoman. Freak. Hero.

Chelsea Manning has been called many things and is recognizable to many.

She has informed the public of United States military activities across the globe and continues to speak out against government secrecy and in defense of transgender rights.Her words and actions have powerfully transformed national conversations, but since her arrest in 2010 on charges related to her release of information to WikiLeaks, few have had a chance to actually see and hear from Chelsea herself.

Today, Chelsea is telling her story through an Amnesty International podcast. You can listen here.

I feel like I've been stored away for all this time without a voice, she says through the voice of transgender actress Michelle Hendley, who sounds eerily like Chelsea. I feel like there's so much of a contribution to society that I could be making. I spend every day looking forward to the hope that one day I can give that a go.

During the podcast, Chelsea recounts her early childhood and young adulthood struggling with her gender and homelessness. She talks about her decision to enlist in the military in October of 2007 as well as her arrest and brutal torture while in confinement at Quantico. She finishes up her story describing her incarceration at the Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth. The story is in Chelseas own voice, with the earnest thoughtfulness that I have come to appreciate as quintessentially Chelsea.

As her lawyer, I am one of a few people who can speak to and visit Chelsea. I have had the privilege of hearing her voice and learning about the strong and resilient person that is behind the many public narratives and labels. With todays podcast, Chelsea hopes to share that side of her with others. Even though she is not permitted to use her actual voice, having another trans woman tell her story was critical to her as she continues to try to build human connections beyond the prison walls.

At the end of the podcast, Chelsea reflects on her younger self:

I've imagined a few times what it would be like if I could travel back in time and speak to myself as a teenager. I know what she was feeling deep down inside. I know all the fears that she had, and all the vulnerabilities she was hiding. I would want to grab her by the hand and tell her that everything is going to be okay. I would tell her that there is nothing wrong with you, and that you are more loved and appreciated than you realize. I would tell her that she can be a happier and healthier person if she stays true to herself, like I have finally been able to figure out.

One of the amazing things about Chelsea is her ability to find beauty and love, even in the most desperate circumstances. It comes through in her story and leaves you hopeful for a more just world a world where we can break down the isolation and violence of incarceration and build up the humanity and decency of our fellow human beings.

Continue reading here:
Who is Chelsea Manning? | American Civil Liberties Union

19 Jan 2015, 01:00pm

I hope that you will continue supporting my fight for justice. My case impacts important issues that affect many, if not all, Americans. Chelsea Manning

Chelsea Manning is a American soldier and whistleblower. She is currently serving a 35-year sentence in military prison for leaking classified US government documents to the Wikileaks website, and revealing to the public that the US army, the CIA and Iraqi and Afghan forces committed human rights violations.

Chelsea has always claimed that she released information in the public interest. The crimes she exposed have not been investigated.

We continue to call for Chelsea's release.

On 21 August 2013 Private Chelsea Manning was sentenced to 35 years in military prison for handing over documents to WikiLeaks during 2009 and 2010 the biggest information leak in US military history.

Chelsea was found guilty of numerous offences, including theft and espionage. During her trial she was banned from presenting her evidence or the motives behind her actions, including her claim that she was acting in the public interest in exposing military abuses.

Until her trial, Chelsea was known as Private Bradley Manning. She now identifies as a woman.

While stationed in Iraq between November 2009 and May 2010, US military analyst Chelsea obtained and distributed classified military information to the WikiLeaks website. She was arrested in May 2010 after a former computer hacker reported Chelsea to the FBI.

Chelsea says she acted with the intention of exposing potential human rights abuses by the US army and its allies, in order to open up informed public debate around American operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It was never my intention to hurt anyone. I only wanted to help people. When I chose to disclose classified information, I did so out of a love for my country and a sense of duty to others. Chelsea Manning

Information leaked by Chelsea included details of potential human rights abuses, including a secret attack by a US Apache helicopter in Baghdad, in which US soldiers killed 12 people, including civilians. To date, there has been no independent and impartial investigation into this attack US authorities have focused on charging Chelsea, rather than investigating the content of material she drew attention to.

After her arrest, Chelsea was held for three years in pre-trial detention. She was kept in solitary confinement for eleven months of her pre-trial detention, in conditions that amount to torture, according to the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture.

Chelsea was confined in a windowless six-metre cell for 23 hours a day, without personal possessions, bed sheets, and at times even her glasses. While she was seen as a suicide risk, Chelsea was only allowed to wear her boxer shorts in her cell, and was sometimes forced to go without even her underwear.

Chelsea has described how she was verbally harassed just before the suicide watch began and how she believed that it was a punishment imposed upon her as a retribution for a protest at the conditions of her detention that had been held outside the detention centre the previous day.

At her July 2013 trial, Chelsea was not allowed to present evidence that she was acting in the public interest her defense all along; instead she could only explain her motives when she was being sentenced, and the judgment had already been made.

I will serve my time knowing that sometimes you have to pay a heavy price to live in a free society. Chelsea Manning

Chelsea pleaded guilty to charges involving the leaking of the classified material. However, the military brought several much more serious charges against her, including violating Americas Espionage Act and aiding the enemy. She was not convicted of 'aiding the enemy' but was found guilty of violating the Espionage Act on numerous counts.

Prosecuting beyond the information leak to WikiLeaks constitutes overcharging: rather than punishing Chelsea just for the leaking offences she had already admitted to, the prosecution brought wider ideological charges against her. In doing so, the prosecution said they intended to send a harsh warning to other potential whistleblowers an action that could prevent information about human rights abuses and wrongdoing being revealed by military personnel in future.

Go here to see the original:
Chelsea Manning | Amnesty International UK

Senior Research Assistant Georgia Regents University

July 2013 July 2015 (2 years 1 month)

-Assisting in research under the direction of Dr. Vaughn McCall, Chairman of the Psychiatry and Health Behavior Department -Coordinating multi-site NIH and industry-sponsored clinical trials -Recruiting, screening, and retention of research participants -Evaluating research participants through psychiatric rating scales and questionnaires -Monitoring participant study medication dispensation and accountability -Conducting study visits in compliance with study protocols -Data collection and entry in compliance with HIPAA, GCPs, IRB, FDA, and sponsor guidelines -Arranging after-study care for research participants and making appropriate community referrals -Communicating with sponsors, monitors, research investigators, IRB members, and other agencies involved in the studies -Training newly hired research assistants and medical student research volunteers in all aspects of study protocols and IRB policies -Using a centrifuge for spinning samples

May 2012 July 2013 (1 year 3 months)

Conducted neuropsychological assessments to children and adults to aid in diagnostic and treatment planning

Assessment Experience: Autobiographical Memory Interview-Short Form (AMI-SF), Bender Visual-Motor Gestalt Test-2, Boston Naming Test (BNT), Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), California Verbal Learning Test II (CVLT-II), Conners Continuous Performance Test 2 (CPT-2), Dementia Rating Scale- Initiation Perseveration Index (DRS-IP), D-KEFS Verbal Fluency Test, Grey Oral Reading Test IV (GORT-4), Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD), Montgomerysberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test (M-FAST), Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview Plus, Mini Mental Status Examination (MMSE), Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2), Multilingual Aphasia Examination (MAE), Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-4, Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI), Primary Test of Nonverbal Intelligence, Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS), Scale for Suicidal Ideation (SSI), Stroop Color and Word Test-Adult, Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders (SCID), Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM), Test of Verbal Conceptualization and Fluency (TCVF), Test of Visual Perceptual Skills III (TVPS-3),Time to Reorientation for Electroconvulsive Therapy (ECT), Trail Making Test (TMT) Parts A and B, Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale IV (WAIS IV), Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children IV (WISC-IV), Wechsler Test of Adult Reading (W-TAR), Wide Range Achievement Test 4 (WRAT-4), Wide Range Assessment of Memory and Learning 2 (WRAML-2), Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST), Woodcock Johnson III (WJ-III)

January 2011 May 2012 (1 year 5 months)

-Taught graduate students how to implement and interpret personality assessments, and how to collect data to derive conclusive diagnoses -Practiced clerical skills and acted as communication liaison between faculty members -Provided animal care for the animal lab

October 2010 May 2011 (8 months)

Used biofeedback to study the effects of engagement during majority and consensus decision making. Responsibilities included: Research design, running participants, statistical analysis

Excerpt from:
Chelsea Manning | LinkedIn

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move from Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning.

First, thank you to all of the participants of this move request. The page history shows a couple of rough moments, but the overall picture was of good-faith editors making well-reasoned arguments grounded in both policy and respect for our values.

As a reminder to both newer editors (welcome!) and those reading this who may be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's processes, move requests, like many other types of Wikipedia discussions, are not decided on the basis of vote counts, but on the strength of arguments. Thus, even though the numbers show that a strong majority of participants support the move to "Chelsea Manning", we must set that aside and focus instead on the substance of the "support" and "oppose" comments rather than how many of them there are.

The core of the debate comes down to differing interpretations of WP:COMMONNAME, part of our policy on article titles. Both sides cite COMMONNAME as supporting their positions: those supporting the move see the intent of the policy as "what do the reliable sources use (now)?" and those opposing the move view it as "what name does the average person recognize?" Both of these interpretations are reasonable, but we conclude that the supporters' interpretation is closer to the letter and spirit of the policy. The guidance that COMMONNAME offers is that editors base their article titling decision on which name is predominant "as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources".

Further, COMMONNAME seems to be the opponents' main argument, whereas the supporters make other persuasive arguments: for example, that, in the absence of overwhelming reliable source usage otherwise, Wikipedia should respect what an article subject says their own name is. WP:DIGNITY and WP:HARM are, it should be noted, only essays, but the supporters make a good case that we should have a good reason for disregarding the subject's stated wishes.

A lack of reliable sourcing would be, per COMMONNAME, a good reason to overrule an article subject's preferences, but it appears, based on the evidence presented in this move request, that the reliable sources have generally (although certainly not unanimously) gotten on board with Manning's request to be referred to as Chelsea. It therefore does not seem credible to say that WP:COMMONNAME and the subject's wishes are on the opposite sides of the scale.

Given that, we find that, on the basis of COMMONNAME, there is consensus to move the article from Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning.

That is not to say, however, that the opposing arguments lack merit. Regardless of how quickly the reliable sources adopted the new name, it is fair to say that due to past coverage of the article subject as "Bradley Manning", many people are likely to know of Manning as Bradley, not Chelsea. It is certainly true that the actions that garnered Manning notability were taken under the name Bradley Manning. Following the principle of least astonishment, a possible compromise title, such as "Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning" might be one way to satisfy that concern; however, the manual of style discourages longer titles where a short one would be sufficient to unambiguously identify the subject, so such a compromise proposal would have its own set of problems.

There was a fair amount of discussion, from both sides, on the applicability of our biographies of living persons policy on a potential move, but no clear consensus on whether BLP concerns were applicable to the naming dispute. Indeed, several of those who supported the move to "Chelsea Manning" explicitly rejected BLP as grounds for a move. It is clear that there is a division among editors over whether, and under what circumstance, our BLP policy mandates that we follow an article subject's wishes regarding their chosen name.

One additional concern that deserves to be addressed was that the move request itself was not worded neutrally. This is true, but to consider this something that compromises the integrity of the discussion misunderstands the nature of move requests. Move requests are, with rare exceptions, filed by an editor who believes a page should be moved, rather than someone who is indifferent. It is natural and, indeed, expected, that they would make their case in the move request for why they think the move is necessary and desirable. Participants are free to accept or reject the reasoning offered by the proposer, and to make their own cases to their fellow editors why the page should or should not be moved.

Once again, thank you to everyone who participated in this discussion for your time and input, and for the trust you have granted the three of us in assessing consensus here. The page will be moved forthwith; please continue any discussion at the main article talk page, not here. Guerillero | My Talk, 28bytes, Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 23:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Bradley Manning Chelsea Manning As proposed by the closers of the last debate and agreed by subsequent consensus, I am starting the new move discussion and proposing that we move the article currently located at Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning, for the following reasons:

Relevant sources on usage in reliable sources as well as relevant policies and guidelines, contributed by various users over the last few weeks, are cited below. Josh Gorand (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Please be civil, and respect the viewpoints of others. Please do not engage in battlegrounding. Please assume good faith and do not engage in personal attacks.

Please cite relevant Wikipedia policies when you make your argument. You may wish to consider the arguments that others put forward in the previous move request.

Wikipedia has editors from all over the world, raised in different societies and with different cultural norms, so please assume good faith and accept that different people may have different views from you on this subject. This discussion centers around the title of the article currently located at Bradley Manning. Please comment only about what you think the best choice of article title is according to Wikipedia's policies; please refrain from making other types of comments. For example, your personal opinions about transgenderism whether pro or con are not germane to this discussion, and such off-topic comments may be closed or ignored.

Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy also applies on talk pages, so please familiarize yourself with it. To avoid what some perceive as transphobia[1] during this discussion and to ensure there is a welcoming environment for editors of all kinds, please consider adhering to the following guidelines:

Please remember that the policy No personal attacks applies to this discussion, for all editors. If you see someone's comment and it offends you or you find it transphobic, consider informing them with a civil note on their talk page that you find their language inappropriate, or reporting their comment at WP:ANI if it is egregiously offensive. We're all learning here, and a more open approach (e.g. "You said this, which could be construed as harmful language towards a BLP, can you consider rewording it") may yield more dividends than simply accusing someone of transphobia because they crossed a line they may not have been aware of. Blanket statements like "Those proposing to keep the article titled Bradley are bigoted transphobes" polarize the discussion and are likely to make other contributors less willing to understand your view.

Discussion of the subject of this article and/or transgender issues falls under standard discretionary sanctions. See also, WP:BLPBAN.

This section can be used to gather evidence from reliable sources on usage of Chelsea Manning vs Bradley Manning as the primary name of the subject.

Sources are sorted based on their latest use of one name or the other in an article or editorial statement from after August 22, when the announcement was made. It is trivially obvious that sources from before the announcement use Bradley; that is not of interest and such sources are not listed here.

Note that regardless of which name they use on first mention, almost all of the sources listed in both sections mention and contribute to readers' awareness of the existence of both names.

News sources which have mixed up usage of Bradley and Chelsea. In most cases, if a news source started using Bradley post Aug 22, and then started exclusively using Chelsea, we marked it in the Chelsea list. However, if a news source has alternated between use of Bradley and Chelsea since Aug 22, then it is listed here.

On initial move from Bradley to Chelsea

On reversal from Chelsea to Bradley

(list courtesy of [14])

This section can also be used to gather reliable sources that discuss the use of names to refer to trans people. Note that this move request covers only the naming portion, and not the pronoun question.

Some editors have expressed a concern that the following source is not reliable, while other editors consider it to be reliable:

Procedurally, this Move Request was discussed and advertised at the last close and continuously on the Wiki since. At least three discussions rejected additional delay [19],[20],[21], and it appears to be a Move Request substantively within WP:RM, so the procedural and bureaucratic objections below should be rejected. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:15, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

While BLP may guide a decision here, it in no way mandates the change, and it should not have been invoked to lock in the original move. That action turned August's RM into a referendum on enforcing the R in WP:BRD.

Many editors here suggest that it should be policy that WP titles its biographical articles based solely on the subject's legal name, while others advocate that the subject's preferred name always be used. Both suggestions are short sighted. Manning's choice of Chelsea Elizabeth appears neither whimsical nor mocking, and I am glad to see the media respecting her choice. If she had instead announced a preference for, and possibly obtained a statutory, legal name change to IDidNothingWrong ImInnocent PleasePardonMeMrPresident Manning, the media would, at best, mention this as a footnote in their articles, and we would not find a consensus here on WP to support such a title change. But what if she had chosen Liberty Innocent Manning? That is a reasonable name, but would still be viewed by many as mocking her conviction. Would we automatically choose such a name for this article's title? Fortunately, we do not need to make such arbitrary decisions ourselves because we rely on outside sources. We should always follow our sources and never lead them. -- ToE 12:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The majority of people making google searches are still using "Bradley". Like it or not, thanks to decreasing fertility rates, increasing life expectancy and an aging population, the world has a surplus of wrinkly old men that outnumber young people within the developed western world (which also happens to be portion of the world that dominates internet usage), and statistically speaking (past surveys, voter statistics, etc) older people tend to hold more conservative views than younger people with more liberal ideas. Don't like this predicament? There's not much else you can do, apart from raising the fertility rate by having more babies.

I personally don't give a damn about where this article goes, however. During the last RM, my main beef was that there was admin abuse over the whole incident, which was the reason for my !vote. I was opposed to how the whole situation unfolded, where admin action was taken without proper consensus. This time, I don't really feel that I need to care about anything. That said, I would like people to take the above points into account. --benlisquareTCE 07:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

* The wording should be neutral so as to not unduly sway the!voting or the consensus building process. This obviously taints the result. As a point of comparison, imagine voting in a presidential election and the voting booth contained a long list of all the great things Obama is doing for America and how terrible McCain is (or vice versa). Such a scenario would be completely unacceptable. That's basically what we have here.

* This should be an RfC so as to better reflect community consensus. MRs rarely attract outside opinions from uninvolved editors.

* This is bad timing considering that ArbCom is in the middling of finalizing their decision. I expect that ArbCom will topic-ban the most disruptive editors. It should be easier for consensus building process to proceed after ArbCom completes. I suggest that this MR be closed down, and someone open an RfC with neutral wording after the ArbCom case completes. BTW, someone apparently moved my!vote. Please do not do that again. All editors should be allowed to!vote. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

As a point of comparison, there are 408 page watchers over the main talk page[29] and only 81[30] over the sub talk page. Even if all 81!voted the same, that's still a tiny fraction of the majority. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

* Comment * - I didn't realize my comment would cause such a shitstorm (over nothing). That definetly wasn't my intent, so I appologize for that. However, I stand by my comments as being valid and pertinent to the discussion. KoshVorlon.We are all Kosh 16:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment When is this RM supposed to be closed? Cam94509 (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

@KB, The only complaint that is being made about this RM is that Josh Gorand acted like a horse's petute and launched his preferred version when he knew that a collaborative effort was in place. Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not quite snowing, but it's definitely a solid rain here in favor of NO SNOW CLOSE of this discussion. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I would like to request that this discussion not be subject to a SNOW close. Everyone who wants to express their view should have the usual time to do so. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I think if we're still running at a roughly 36:1 ratio in a day or two we can probably declare that the Process Gods have accepted our tribute and blessed us with rain, or whatever. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this should just be left to run it's course, we're only doing this weeks down the line because of the impatience and hubris of the initial move, so let's learn the lessons, take our time, and leave no doubt that the consensus is solid. --Jeude54cartes (talk) 09:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I am inclined to move the first two "Neutral"!votes by User:A Quest For Knowledge and User:Collect to this section, as they are addressed solely to the process, and not to the merits of the discussion. The third and fourth!votes by User:Carolmooredc and User:Sphilbrick are examples of!votes that actually weigh in on the topic at hand. Disputes about whether this should be conducted as an RfC rather than an RM (or disagreeing with the rules governing the RM process itself) should be limited to discussion sections. bd2412 T 17:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment. The instructions for a move request say to provide "evidence in support where appropriate." Notice the last two words. It is inappropriate to provide mounds of one-sided evidence, while assiduously avoiding and omitting evidence on the other side. WP:NPOV is greatly undermined in this way. To provide all this evidence while omitting a simple Google News Search is obviously deliberate and obviously intended to produce a skewed result. No instructions anywhere prevent inclusion of non-supporting evidence, and it is never "appropriate" to deliberately omit non-supporting evidence from mounds of supporting evidence.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Keilana has recused herself

Keilana has been proposed as the closing admin for this move request, as per this discussion. However, her comments on Wikipedia Weekly on YouTube suggest that she strongly favors one side over another in this dispute. Therefore, while I do not doubt Keilana's integrity, I think that it would be more appropriate to find somebody who has not yet commented on this case.

Unfortunately, links to YouTube are blacklisted on Wikipedia, but anyone can find them easily. The first video is titled "Wikipedia Weekly #99: Bradley-Chelsea-Bradley Manning", and the relevant discussion takes place over the first 16 minutes. The second video is titled "Wikipedia Weekly #100 - Century Mark", and the relevant discussion begins after 13 minutes. Edge3 (talk) 00:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: I just learned how to circumvent the blacklist on YouTube links. Video 1 (first 16 minutes) and Video 2 (after 13 minutes). Edge3 (talk) 00:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Manning move_discussion in progress: uninvolved admins needed, I have asked uninvolved admins to indicate their willingness to participate in a triumvirate to close this move request. -sche (talk) 01:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Being a contributor to The Wikipedia Weekly, The Wikipedia Signpost and so on shouldn't disqualify an editor from closing a discussion. The close is based on policy and consensus, not on the editor's personal views. Also, it doesn't appear that the close will be controversial considering the vote currently being 401, so it probably won't matter that much anyway. Josh Gorand (talk) 01:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm proud of my ability to stay impartial in controversial situations, including the other RfCs I've closed. I had very strong opinions about the Muhammad images and Jerusalem cases, and in fact disagreed with the consensus in one of those situations. I have also been in similar situations with AfDs, where I have ascertained a consensus that I personally disagree with. If there's a consensus that I'm unsuitable, that's fine, but I think that given my ability to read consensus despite my personal feelings and the fact that two other admins would be involved, with their own opinions (let's be honest - no one has no opinion whatsoever on this topic), I would be an acceptable closer. But it's not up to me. Keilana|Parlez ici 01:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Keilana seems to be well suited to doing the close and if joined by two others I think it will be fine. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

You know, I'm somehow not convinced this is going to be a contentious close... Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who is on the admin panel, Obi-Wan Kenobi can use the force to get the outcome he prefers. Count Iblis (talk) 02:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Other than a couple of procedural things and my "vote" in the first RfC, I have stayed out of this one; but as someone who gets concerned about "procedure", I just wanted to make a comment. By my reading of the "Closure" section below, this RfC may be closed any time after 19:15 UTC, October 7. By the time I finish typing this, that will be approximately 17.5 hours away. At this point, User:Kim Dent-Brown and User:Guerillero have been discussed as part of the closing "team" and each has said they will do it if asked. I have not seen any objections to either of them. As far as I can tell, they have not actually been "asked." As for a third person, right now there isn't one. As for the ArbCom, they had a motion pending in which they would appoint the closers, but that motion has failed. I propose we take the bull by the horns (is that an Americanism? If so, apologies) and officially ask Kim Dent-Brown and Guerillero to be the TWO closers, that they try to close this as soon after 19:15 UTC as would fit in with the rest of their lives, and that their decision must be unanimous, otherwise there is no "close" and someone needs to come up with Plan B. I don't think it's my place to ask them unilaterally (especially since I have added the two-closer and unanimous parts myself), but I am hoping we can get quick agreement on this and that someone can do the asking. Neutron (talk) 01:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This discussion is continuing under "Closure", below. Neutron (talk) 02:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Looking through the various applicable policies, I didn't notice anything explicitly addressing how name changes should be dealt with as a general issue (independently of any gender issues this particular one is enmeshed in). If Wikipedia had existed at the time Cassius Clay changed his name to Muhammad Ali, at what point in the process would the change have been applied to the article? Would it happen as soon as he said that this was the name he wanted to be known as, or would it have to wait until more people knew him as that than his former name? *Dan T.* (talk) 02:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It's incorrect to say that the transition name is currently the common name. Notice that there are sources that use only Bradley and none that use only Chelsea. --DHeyward (talk) 04:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm somewhat confused by the instructions. They read: "Add # Support or # Oppose on a new line in the appropriate section below, followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using. Please remember that this survey is not a substitute for discussion, and please provide a brief explanation for your recommendation. Responses to statements made in the survey sections should be restricted to the discussion section." If this is not a poll but a discussion, then why do I have to add a # Support or # Oppose, and why does my explanation need to be brief? If it is a poll, why is an explanation required? Should there be discussion? Or is the idea here that we just voice our opinion without talking to eachother here? If so, where should discussion take place? What is the validity of a poll/survey? How will it be used in determining consensus? For something that had a month op preparation time, this seems rather ill thought out. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 07:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why dates are deemed as unhelpful. Somehow, any administrator would have trouble reading 200 or 400 votes in one day or two. --George Ho (talk) 17:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Just to note that we are in fact here again having a vote on whether to recognise someone's gender transition (what looks like a vote, walks like a vote and talks like a vote is a vote, even if Wikipedia editors often insist we are not voting). This was an issue brought up in press coverage and that provoked significant negative reactions in external media (see eg. [42] and [43]) and social media the last time. Having initiated this vote this time, I would like to note that I was and am very much uncomfortable with the fact that we are holding such a vote in the first place and that I don't think it's ethical or compliant with how we ought to treat biographies of living people, but alas, this is how things apparently works on this website, for now, and thus the only available method of getting the article moved from Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning. Josh Gorand (talk) 22:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Someone collapse this. It has zero valueTwo kinds of pork (talk) 00:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Well I saw that this has already been brought to WP:ANI regarding a closure request based on consensus by numbers. Consensus works by strengths of arguments not by numbers so I just want to put that out there first. Anyways is there a timeline for when this move request is to be closed? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

See my note under "Choosing a closing admin panel" above. Basically I am proposing that User:Kim Dent-Brown and User:Guerillero go ahead and close this together, without a third, and that their decision must be unanimous to "count". Neutron (talk) 01:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Although I think it's unlikely Kim Dent-Brown and Guerillero will deadlock in a tie over how to close this discussion, I've put out an appeal for a third admin to join them. -sche (talk) 02:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

When I pointed out earlier the ethical problem of voting on whether to recognise someone's gender identity, I was told "we are not voting," as Wikipedia editors often insist, but here we are, with people talking about percents and votes. The oppose arguments in this discussion are mostly very weak, as they are not supported by solid rationales, often ignoring the evidence cited in the discussion and not based on policy (eg. a lot of claims she needs to have a legal name change or even "an executive order from his commander in chief" (sic!) (whatever that means) for us to move the article). Josh Gorand (talk) 02:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Are there any objections to User:28bytes being the third closer? Plus, could we please not have debate in this section over the merits of the move or the strength of the arguments? This section is about how to get this thing closed. Neutron (talk) 04:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

A look at their edit history (new user as of August 28th) has them only editing within the topic of this move request. I have tagged their comments as such. Mike (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

This comment was removed above with the justification that it is not relevant to discuss Manning's gender. However, there have been other comments supporting the view that Manning is a woman and using that as a rationale. ([49], [50], [51].) If editors can use this as a rationale, is it not valid for this to be discussed? This article may end up being moved to "Chelsea Manning" partly for the reason that he/she is a woman, and no discussion of this point will have been allowed. For the purpose of neutrality and the appearance of a fair discussion, I recommend that such comments be removed as off-topic. Count Truthstein (talk) 18:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The rest is here:
Talk:Chelsea Manning/October 2013 move request - Wikipedia ...

The 31-page file obtained by Chelsea Manning lists eight traits that agents should look for when assessing government employees for telltale signs that they might reveal state secrets. Photograph: Patrick George/Alamy

Thousands of US government employees under permanent surveillance are being investigated for signs of greed, ego, money worries, disgruntlement or other flaws in the hope of intercepting the next big official leak, according to a document obtained by Chelsea Manning.

The extent of the governments internal surveillance system designed to prevent massive leaks of the sort linked to WikiLeaks and the former NSA contractor Edward Snowden is revealed in the document, published here by the Guardian for the first time. The US soldier, who is serving 35 years in military prison as the source of the 2010 WikiLeaks disclosure of secret state documents, requested her own intelligence file under freedom of information laws.

The file was compiled under the Insider Threat program that was set up by President Obama in the wake of Mannings disclosures. The file shows that officials have been using Mannings story as a case study from which they have built a profile of the modern official leaker in the hope of catching future disclosures before they happen.

At the start of the 31-page file, government officials list the eight characteristics that agents should look for in employees as telltale signs that they might be tempted to reveal state secrets. The character traits are called Insider Threat motives.

Those surveillance categories are themselves extracted from an analysis of Chelsea Mannings story. In the document Manning is referred to in male gender pronouns as the file was composed on 14 April 2014 nine days before the prisoner was legally allowed to change her name as part of her transition as a transgender woman.

The Insider Threat analysis claims that Manning displayed several of those eight core motives of the prototype leaker. Before she transmitted hundreds of thousands of secret documents to WikiLeaks, she showed signs of disgruntlement, the file states.

She also subscribed to the ideology that all information should be made public, which the officials suggested stemmed from her association with self-proclaimed hackers.

In an opinion article in the Guardian, Manning said that the use of subjective labels in her file such as greed, disgruntlement and ideology meant that virtually every government employee could be targeted under the Insider Threat program. The broad sweep of the program means officials have been given a blank check for surveillance.

Manning writes that the program works against innovation, creativity and the prevention of institutional corruption. Perhaps this is the real intent to instill fear and project dominance throughout the intelligence community, the military and among government employees and contractors at large.

The government has already put about 100,000 military and civilian employees and contractors under what it calls continuous evaluation, according to documents obtained by Steven Aftergood at the Federation of American Scientists. He told the Guardian that the character traits deployed in the Insider Threat file on Manning were strikingly similar to the formula used to detect traitors and spies during the cold war.

Back then they used the acronym Mice, standing for money, ideology, coercion or ego. Aftergood said that the cold war record showed that the focus on those characteristics were not all that successful in sniffing out vulnerabilities. They are not necessarily useful ways of predicting what an individual will do that remains difficult though not entirely impossible.

The expansion of the Insider Threat program has raised fears among whistleblower groups that it will spread paranoia among employees and make it increasingly difficult for workers who have concerns about corruption or other misconduct to sound the alarm. Thomas Drake, a former NSA senior executive who blew the whistle on problems and inefficiencies within the agency was prosecuted under the 1917 Espionage Act, said that the program was a form of mass surveillance of the governments own workers that he likened to a dystopia.

It puts employees under continuous evaluation interesting phrase for all their activities including their outside actions and financial accounts. Whistleblowers and those who speak truth to power, especially when its about national security, are going to get hammered.

In an Insider Threat presentation from last year, officials placed Drake and Snowden two whistleblowers who sounded the alarm about what they saw as government excesses for no financial gain within a gallery of those who have done us harm alongside Soviet spies Aldrich Ames and Robert Hannsen and Fort Hood mass shooter Nidal Hasan.

Jesselyn Radack, who heads the Whistleblower and Source Protection program at ExposeFacts and who represents both Drake and Snowden, called Insider Threat a modern-day McCarthyism that has friends and colleagues spy on and report each other. It effectively stifles workplace free speech, dissent and is openly trying to deter whistleblowers.

The Insider Threat file on Manning suggests that the soldiers gender dysphoria where her gender identity is out of sync with her gender at birth was also a character trait that could have been used to predict her desire to leak state secrets.

Chase Strangio, the ACLU lawyer who represents Manning in her legal disputes with the US military relating to her gender transition, said that the file was yet another example of the soldiers voice and identity being used against her. They are using her gender identity to suggest it fits into an offender profile.

Strangio said the implication of the document was that anyone who pushes back on injustice against LGBT people within the military should be considered an insider threat. We are seeing that argument used over and over again in Chelseas case.

See the original post here:
Chelsea Manning: government anti-leak program a 'blank check ...

In late 2009 and early 2010, a 22-year-old Private First Class and Army intelligence analyst named Bradley Manning downloaded a mass of classified and confidential files, some to a CD marked "Lady Gaga," and passed them to the online media outlet WikiLeaks. For many, the digital dump of this material, much of which came to be known as the Afghan and Iraq "War Logs"and which included video of an American helicopter attack on a group unarmed civilianswas the righteous act of a whistle-blower seeking greater transparency of our military's conduct. Some have even credited Manning's leak of diplomatic cables with inspiring the progressive uprisings of the Arab Spring, which began shortly thereafter. In 2011, however, the Army charged Manning with, among other things, "aiding the enemy," a crime akin to treason and potentially punishable by death(and for which she was ultimately found not guilty).For much of that year, Manning had been held in what amounted to solitary confinementso as to prevent self-harm, it was claimedin a military brig in Quantico, Virginia. And, on August 21, 2013, Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison and sent to the United States Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

In an announcement made the day after sentencing, Manning came out as transgender, declaring her intent to begin living openly as a woman. The next year, she successfully petitioned to have her name legally changed to Chelsea Elizabeth Manning and, in February 2015, was allowed to begin hormone therapy. Since that time, Manning has written a column for The Guardian's U.S. website, recounting the many threats made against her during her more than five years in prison (that she would be sent away to be tortured at a black site or disappeared in Guantanamo, for starters), reflecting on her most dire moments, contemplating castration and suicide, and her hope for a sisterhood beyond bars with which she can claim communion, and to which she can give strength.

Growing up, Manning was bounced around, from Oklahoma to Wales and back, cared for as often by her sister, Casey, 11 years her senior, as by her parentsboth of whom Casey has characterized as alcoholics. In Leavenworth, Manning, now 28, has access to psychotherapy sessions, radio, and cosmetics, but is strictly limited in access to visitors and cannot go on the internet. She cannot be photographed, interviewed on camera, or speak with journalists in person or on the phone, but can communicate by post. So, in January, I wrote her to tell her about our special April issue celebrating the pathfinders and conscientious among us who are creating new spaces for themselves and for others, and asked her to be a part of it. She very kindly accepted. Here is our correspondence.

CHRIS WALLACE: First of all, how are you? Is there anything that Ior anyonecan or ought to be doing for you?

CHELSEA MANNING: Thank you. I am pushing myself through at the moment. I have a lot on my plate currently: I'm waiting for the judge's ruling in my lawsuit challenging the military prison's hair-length restrictions; I'm still in the process of challenging what I believe to be an unlawful and discriminatory disciplinary board from last year; I've challenged the Department of Justice and FBI to release the investigative records related to my case; and, most importantly, I'm only weeks away from filing the brief in my court-martial appeal. It's an exhausting schedule. As for you and anyone else, I can only ask of those who care about me and the issues in my case to support me and spread the word about what is going on. Donations to my legal defense fund really help, and I think keeping me motivated and spreading the message are also very important.

WALLACE: You wrote recently about how tough the holidays were. How is your day-to-day life? Are there things you particularly look forward to, dread, or are surprised by?

MANNING: Day-to-day life is as simple as it is routinethough my days are often long and very busy. On weekdays, I wake up at about 4:30 each morning. I get dressed, have a cup of coffee, and go to the prison cafeteria for breakfast. Not long after dawn, we show up for work at our day jobs. I work at the prison wood shop. Any legal or medical appointments are scheduled during the workday, too. We have about an hour and a half break for lunch, which is when I make a lot of my phone calls. The workday ends around 4 p.m. When I get back to my cell, I usually have a stack of mail and laundry at the front of the cell. For about an hour, I sort and neatly fold my laundry and read my mail. On a normal day, this includes dozens of cards and letters from supporters, a newspaper, and a handful of magazine subscriptions. Before the evening starts, I eat dinner. The rest of the day is filled with recreation. This includes the library, where I type up legal papers, letters, and assignments for college correspondence courses. I also like to run and do HIIT-style exercises during gym and outside recreation hoursbut I recently took a break for a few months because of the hormone treatments. I have only just started doing these routines again in the past couple weeks. There are very few distinctions between el bueno and el malo en la prisin militar. Instead of the good and the bad, there is the boring and la repeticinthe repetitive. The routine is as endless as it is numbing. It's like Groundhog Day [1993], except that I am getting older.

WALLACE: What is your rapport like with other inmates and officers or wardens? Has it changed in the time since you've been there? Have provisions and accommodations changed to better suit you since you began transitioning?

MANNING: I don't have any issues with the inmates or the guard force here at the prison. Initially, I didn't have any problems with the senior staff, but that started to change last summer. Lately, I'm under a lot of scrutiny every day by those here that run the prison but don't actually walk inside except on rare occasions. It seems as though they press the junior staff to focus their attention on me-and not in good ways. It is very exhausting. For the transition, I am being provided cosmetics, female undergarments, and a stable hormone treatment. I am still cutting my hair to a two-inch male restriction imposed by the prison, which I am fighting. I only want to have carefully groomed shoulder length hair meeting the standard of other female military prisoners. Yet, even the accommodations I have now were only provided after a year and a half of fighting. So I remain hopeful.

WALLACE: Are you able to sense how things on the outside have changed for the trans community in, say, the past five years? Are you hearing enough from people on the outside to be able to gauge that?

MANNING: Unfortunately, I don't sense that things have really changed for the trans community in the last five years. Sure, we are certainly much more visible than we were only a few years ago. Media outlets are more frequently using the correct names, titles, and pronouns for trans folks as well. Yet visibility is not equality. We are still in very, very bad shape. There are still many homeless trans folk wandering the streets. They are still harassed on the street by bystanders and police officers. We still face many administrative hurdles in every aspect of our lives. If anything, things are actually getting harder for us, because now there are people who are using our visibility as an excuse to say that we are already receiving fair and honest treatment, when the reality is that we are still in bad shape as a community.

WALLACE: How much do you think about perceptions of you personally? How would you like to be thought of, understood, perceived?

MANNING: You know, I really don't care how I am perceived by people on the outside. I am aware ofand endlessly grateful forthe support that I get through all of their letters, cards, statements of support, and petitions. Yet, none of this means that I want to be perceived in any particular way. Even if I didn't have the support that I have, I would still be fighting the same fights, and I would still be the same person that I am today.

WALLACE: What changes do you most notice about the world, about reporting, warfare, and intelligence in the time since your trial?

MANNING: The press and free speech landscape has totally changed. There is far less news reporting today. Instead, we have this endless stream oflargely meaningless and speculativeanalysis by sideline commentators and self-proclaimed "experts." This is because investigative journalism and reporting has become much more dangerous. This is especially true for journalists and sources in National Securitybut it has been getting pretty bad for beat reporters and small outlets doing local reporting, too. Beyond the obvious crackdown on leaks under the current U.S. Administration, there has also been the passing of so-called "Ag-gag" laws in states, and the increasingly looming threat of civil litigation by large corporations following the lawsuit over ABC's 1992 report on Food Lion that have also made it harder for reporters to do their jobs. Disturbingly, the First Amendment, along with the Fourth Amendmentprotecting against unreasonable searches and seizures, and requiring warrantshave been the major casualties of the shift in government policy in the last two decades. Unfortunately, I think that the biggest consequences of this tragedy won't be clear until it is far, far too late. I think that the next two generations of Americans will be grappling with the very real specter of finding themselves living in a new and bizarre kind of digital totalitarian stateone that looks and feels democratic on the surface, but has a fierce undercurrent of fear and technologically enforced fascism any time you step out of line. I really hope this isn't the case, but it looks really bad right now, doesn't it?

WALLACE: What are your greatest comforts? Are there any particular books, letters, etcetera, that have been great buoys for you recently?

MANNING: Absolutely! On my birthday, there was a campaign online to send me thousands of postcards. This really gave me a boost during the toughest time of the yearthe holidays. Among these, I received about a hundred or so cards and letters from my trans siblings out there, including trans kids. I was moved when I read their amazing words. It is amazing to feel such a powerful and tangible connection with other trans folks out therethey're just so gentle and genuine.

WALLACE: Are you still a fan of Lady Gaga? Are you able to listen to music, hers or otherwise? Or to watch movies or TV?

MANNING: I am. I have a very small plastic radio that only plays whatever's on the radio in Kansas City and in Lawrence, Kansas. So, I can listen to pop music. I also watch TV on occasionbut nowhere near as frequently as I listen to the radio. I'm also a huge fan of other pop icons today, not just Lady Gaga. I've been a fan of Taylor Swift for yearsever since I heard her song "Love Story." I'm also a really big fan of Selena GomezI really started listening to her a lot in the months before and during my court martial in 2013. It might sound absolutely insane to folks out there, but I can safely say that Selena kept me motivated through the toughest portions of the trial. Most of all, I absolutely love Adele! Her music is so overwhelming and relatable. I was so excited to hear "Hello" on the radio that I stopped what I was doing and sat down to listen. It made me very emotional. I really enjoyed the Saturday Night Live spoof of the video, too. I'm also still a huge fan of EDM. I listen to a lot of the popular stuffCalvin Harris, the Chainsmokers, et ceterafor hours on Saturday nights.

WALLACE: You have criticized Caitlyn Jenner as "the grinch who stole (& sold out) the trans movement." How do you think she is misrepresenting trans people?

MANNING: Well, first I would like to point out that Caitlyn Jenner is not just a personshe is an institution. She has been surrounded by public relations experts who are carefully crafting and controlling the aspects of her public transition. When shesort of, since she really danced around the subjectcame out as trans in her interview with Diane Sawyer, I wanted to give her a chance. Unfortunately, as it became clear through the last year, it hasn't been natural for her. She just isn't up to the task of speaking on these issues. She does not understand, or even try to understand, the trans community as a whole. This is the most disturbing and, frankly, sad aspect of the entire affair. The PR folks are trying to rein in her messaging, but she, as a person, just isn't up to the task. She can't even fake it. I have heardboth directly and indirectlyfrom other trans women, just how tone deaf and distant Ms. Jenner has been with them in their interactions with her last year. But her major public blundersnot quote "getting" marriage equality and worrying about trans women not looking like a "man in a dress"should make it clear to those who didn't interact with her personally that she simply has the wrong mindset to be a spokesperson.

WALLACE: I have heard it said that her transition was "easy." I cannot imagine a single thing about your transitionat any stagethat could be called easy.

MANNING: I do not think that Caitlyn Jenner's transition was easy. Coming out and transitioning as a public figureeven for someone like heris an extraordinarily difficult task to undertake. I might not agree with her on a couple of points, but I will refuse to say that her transition was easy. There is far more to transitioning in the public eye than money, public relations, and logistics. Fundamentally, it is a very real, very difficult emotional roller-coaster. I do not care whether or not you would be considered a hardened celebrity or public personalityyou will have sleepless nights, you will have doubts, your mind will go to dark places. Anxiety, depression, and suicide don't discriminate based on how much money you havethough it might make it easier for you to get help. I think that it will be much easier for the next famous trans person to come out. I predict that such a person is very likely in the process of preparing to come out in transition publicly right now. I think this person is likely a famous actor who will come out as a trans woman in the next year or two. By that time, it will absolutely be a lot easier to transition than it was in 2013 or 2015. I guess we will see how it plays out when it happens. I support the next person fully, and I wish them nothing but the best of luck in their endeavors.

WALLACE: Do you find that you are able to comfort and give strength to others with your story? What, in turn, brings you solace and strength? Were there people who were particularly helpful to you along the way?

MANNING: The most important people for me, at least in the last couple of years since I came out, are my supersecret trans friends and confidantes. I think I need to come up with a code name for this circle. One of them in particular has been my lifeline during really tough momentslike during a rough period of anxiety and depression in May and June of 2015, about three to four months into my hormone treatment. I cried and cried over the phone, and yet these people were there for me when I was at my most vulnerable. It certainly made my struggle a lot easier. I have found hundreds, if not thousands of people who have written to me, or have spoken through people that I know, about the comfort and strength that they have gotten from my story. I must admit: It's a little overwhelming! I immediately relate to all of them, thoughwhich gives me a lot of strength and energy. I think it's actually kind of sweet how there is a reciprocal effect that our stories can have on each other. They inspire me far more than they realize.

WALLACE: Can you tell me a little bit about your life before the Army? What were you into as a kid? In moving from one place to another, to Wales, back to Oklahoma, et cetera, did you have things that kept you tethered, inspired you?

MANNING: As a young kid, I spent a lot of time exploring the world around me. I lived a few miles outside of a tiny town in central Oklahoma. I would often run amok though the fields of wheat, the patches of trees, along the railroad tracks, and on red dirt roads. This had a profound effect on my view of the worldvast, open-ended, full of opportunity, and ready for exploration. I also had regular access to a computer, which was rare for kids in the early and mid-1990s. I think the embryonic digital world had the same affect on me as the openness of the old American frontier. While being tossed around the world from place to place as a teenager, I wasn't really tethered to any place or anyone. I think the increased ubiquity of the internet and networked computing in general allowed me to have some tether no matter where I was geographically. I could log in to a computer from anywhere in the world and access the same information and the same people. It allowed me to transcend the physical differences. I didn't really have anyone in particular who inspired me or that I found fascinating as a kid. It wasn't until I was in my early twenties that I began to find peopleand they were all historic figuresthat I began to relate to and find some inspiration in. Today, there are a lot of pioneers in science and civil rights that I admirepeople like Richard Feynman, Carl Sagan, Malcolm X, and Harvey Milk. This might strike some people as odd, but I feel a connection to them nonetheless.

WALLACE: From your Guardian columns, it seems to me that you have really embraced your position as a leader in advocacy for transparency as well as for inclusiveness and rights for trans people. Are you able to communicate with peers in other movements? Do you feel as though you are a leader, a touchstone, a pioneer to any causes? Do you have any specific ambitions or goalslevels of awareness or concrete legislationthat you'd like to see us achieve in the next five years?

MANNING: You know, I don't think that I'm embracing any kind of leadership for transparency or trans advocacy. It's not my goal to be a leader or spokesperson, or anything like that. I've certainly been given the opportunity to speak out on these issues and a few others. I am really passionate about transparency and trans rights issues, so I embrace these opportunities to speak. I try to stay in touch with those who are prominent in both the trans and transparency movements, but more often than not, I am speaking out on a particular issue on my own. I certainly hope that people listen to me and think about these issues. But regardless of whether I had a public venue to speak in, I would still be passionate about them. On a transparency front, I would say that I certainly dream of a world in which our local, state, and national and international governments and other organizations have a 21st century, digital-era transparency built into them by default. If an organization produces a document, it should be made public as soon as possible. I don't believe that Freedom of Information laws, which have arbitrary time periods or broad blanket exemptions, meet the level of transparency that society needs today. There are just too many opportunitiesand an increasing number of themto hide systemic, institutional wrongdoing behind legal veils, legal theories, and arbitrary exemptions. I hope that we can start to chip away at this, but it sure looks like society is still sliding in the opposite direction. As for trans issues, I believe that the trans movement is at a crossroads. We have achieved an unprecedented level of visibility in the last couple of years. However, as I said, that's not the same thing as equality. There is an awful lot of work to do to protect trans folks. We are still disproportionally poor and administratively and institutionally discriminated against at all levels of society. I think we can achieve meaningful change, but only if we demand that the institutions themselves change their behavior. I think that some of today's focus on freedom of information and trans rights have a tendency to focus on the actions of individuals and how they should be regulated by governments. However, I think it's important to remember that it is the institutions themselvesschools, tax collection services, banks, human resources decisions, health departments, police departments, prosecutors, courts, and prisonswhere the most devastating and systemic problems occur today. The scale of these problems is simply unimaginable. That is why it can be so difficult to get people to think about systemic institutional problems. It is easier just to see the actions of one or two people and say, "That's wrong!"

CHRIS WALLACE IS INTERVIEW'S SENIOR EDITOR.

Read this article:
Chelsea Manning - Page - Interview Magazine

(As read by Aaron Kirkhouse -- May 9, 2016)

Good evening from sunny Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

I wish I could be there to accept this award in person, but since I cannot, I am delighted to have Aaron Kirkhouse accept it on my behalf.

As you know, I am held in an American military prison with only a small library and without access to the internet. In this time of rapid technological advances in social networking and the machine learning age, it's quite an odd predicament to find myself in.

Today, when once obscure online refrains are now finding their way into the global lexicon -- "pics or it didn't happen" -- it's easy to feel disconnected from a world exponentially intertwined and dependent on technology.

As a military prisoner, my public persona is carefully controlled and enforced. Any interviews or statements that I make -- such as this one -- must be written or dictated through someone else who types it up on my behalf. I am not allowed to be recorded over the telephone, do any video interviews, or have any pictures taken -- with the exception of the occasional grainy mug shot. For those living in my situation, it's easy to start feeling invisible -- left behind and dismissed by the rest of a fast-paced society.

Despite these obstacles, I know I need to keep going. It is important to stay vocal. To stay creative. Active. Motivated. To keep fighting.

I keep fighting to survive and thrive. I am fighting my court-martial conviction and sentence before a military appeals court, starting this month. I am fighting to make the full investigation by the FBI public. I am fighting to grow my hair beyond the two-inch male standards by the U.S. military.

I keep fighting to warn the world of the dangerous trend in which the only information you can access is the kind that someone with money or power wants you to see.

And, I keep fighting to let people know that they too can create change. By staying informed and educated, anyone can make a difference. You have the ability to fight for a better world for everyone -- even for the most desperate, those at the bottom of the social ladder, refugees from conflict, queer and trans individuals, prisoners, and those born into poverty.

Thank you all so very much for your support over the years, and thank you to Lady Hollick, Mr. Davis, and Dr. Dreyfus for selecting me to be the first person to receive this award. It is truly an an amazing treat. I'm honored that my voice continues to be heard. Thank you for all for listening and choosing to fight alongside me. And of course, thank you to Aaron Kirkhouse for accepting this award for me.

I am grateful to you all -- for being here tonight, and being there for me tomorrow. Think what we might accomplish if we do one thing -- perhaps a grand undertaking or even what may seem to be a tiny, insignificant gesture -- each day with the simple goal of making the world a better place.

Aaron Kirkhouse (above) accepting the Blueprint Enduring Impact Whistleblowing Prize on Chelsea Manning's behalf.

This piece originally appeared on Chelsea Manning's Medium blog.

View post:
Why I Keep Fighting - huffingtonpost.com