Yhdysvaltain presidentti Barack Obama lievensi Chelsea Manningin rangaistusta. Vuonna 2010 alunperin 35 vuoden vankeuteen salaisten dokumenttien vuotamisesta tuomittu tietovuotaja vapautuu 17. toukokuuta.
29-vuotias (transsukupuolinen) USA:n armeijan sotamies (alkuperäiseltä etunimeltään Bradley) Manning on vastuussa yhdestä Yhdysvaltain historian suurimmista hallintotason tietovuodoista.
Manning luovutti salaisiksi luokiteltuja dokumentteja tiedon avoimuutta ajavalle ryhmälle, Wikileaksille. Tietovuotoryhmän perustaja Julian Assange on myös kuulunut jo vuosia Yhdysvaltain hallinnon mustalle listalle (ja mitä ilmeisemmin Hillary Clintonin ”elävänä tai kuolleena” -listalle).
USA:n hallinnolle tietovuotoa pidettiin häpeällisenä. Videomateriaali Irakin pääkaupungissa, Bagdadissa, 12 siviiliä vuonna 2007 tappaneesta Apache-taisteluhelikopterista oli yksi yli 700 000:sta dokumentista, joiden vuotamisesta Manningia syytetään. Manning on pyytänyt anteeksi ”USA:n vahingoittamista” ja kertonut erheellisesti kuvitelleensa voivansa ”muuttaa maailmaa paremmaksi”.
Naiseksi itsensä kokeva Manning yritti viime vuonna kahdesti itsemurhaa Kansasin Fort Leavenworthissa, missä häntä pidetään miesten vankilassa. Viime vuonna hän oli myös nälkälakossa, kunnes armeija suostui tarjoamaan hänelle sukupuolenvaihdoshoitoa.
Assangen reaktio
Obaman ilmoitus Manningin vapauttamisesta on saanut monet katseet kääntymään kohti Assangea, joka on vuodesta 2012 piileskellyt Yhdysvaltain hallinnon vakoilusyytteiltä Lontoon Ecuadorin suurlähetystön seinien sisällä.
Viikon takaisen Wikileaks-tilin twiitin mukaan Assange lupaa (”huolimatta selvästä perustuslainvastaisuudesta oikeusministeriön jutussa”) antautua luovutettavaksi USA:han, jos Obama armahtaa Manningin. ↓
If Obama grants Manning clemency Assange will agree to US extradition despite clear unconstitutionality of DoJ case https://t.co/MZU30SlfGK
— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) 12. tammikuuta 2017
Manningin vapauttamisesta huolimatta Assange ei ainakaan vielä ole ilmoittanut suostuvansa luovutettavaksi. Wikileaks-tilin twiitin kautta hän onnitteli kaikkia Manningin armahtamisen puolesta toimineita ja kiitti näiden rohkeutta ja päättäväisyyttä. ↓
Assange: "Thank you to everyone who campaigned for Chelsea Manning's clemency. Your courage & determination made the impossible possible."
— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) 17. tammikuuta 2017
OIKAISU 19.1.2017 klo 9:46: Lontoon Perun suurlähetystö korjattu Lontoon Ecuadorin suurlähetystöksi
Lähteet
BBC News (18.12017): Obama commutes Chelsea Manning sentence
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38659068?ocid=socialflow_twitter
Kuva: Bradley Manning Support Network | Wikimedia Commons
Ainoan supervallan presidentti on kuluneen hokeman mukaan maailman mahtavin mies. Sen(kin) vuoksi on kiinnostavaa havaita, että yhä edelleen ’maailman mahtavin mies’ joutuu tekemään ’inhimillisimmät’ päätöksensä vasta valtakautensa viimeisillä metreillä. Obaman tapauksessa esimerkeiksi kelpaavat nimenomaan Manningin rangaistusajan lyhentäminen armahtamalla ja Guantánamon vankileiriin siepattujen vankien määrän mahdollisimman suuri supistaminen. No, kiitos tästäkin vähästä.
Tapio, tai maailman mahtavin ”sätkynukke!!”
Juuri niin. Nyt on mielenkiintoista nähdä onko Trump todella MIES jolla on munaa vai vain seuraava sätkynukke.
Onko miehellä kanttia syödä sanansa kuten O teki ja paljastua edeltäjänsä tapaan pelkäksi henkisen höyhensarjan impotentiksi mieheksi.
Jos on niin saisi ainakin muun maailman makeat pilkkanaurut osakseen ja häpäisisi lopullisesti maansa.
USA:n presidentti Barack Obama viimeisessä lehdistötilaisuudessaan (18.1.2017): Chelsea Manning on jo kärsinyt kovan vankeusrangaistuksen
Obama otti viimeisessä lehdistötilaisuudessaan kantaa (muun ohella) Manningin vapauttamiseen, Venäjä-pakotteisiin ja Lähi-idän rauhanprosessiin.
1. Obama puolusti päätöstään vapauttaa tietovuotaja Chelsea Manning. Obama katsoi, että Manning on jo kärsinyt kovan vankeusrangaistuksen. Obaman mielestä Manningin rangaistus (35 vuotta vankeutta) on ollut suhteeton muiden tietovuotajien rangaistuksiin verrattuna. Manningin rangaistusta on nyt Obaman toimesta lyhennetty niin, että Manning vapautuu vankilasta toukokuussa 2017.
2. Obaman mukaan USA:n Venäjä-pakotteet asetettiin Venäjän tunkeuduttua Ukrainan alueelle. Obama vakuutti, että USA:lla ja Venäjällä on rakentavat välit. Obaman mielestä on USA:n etu ja maailman etu, että USA:lla on rakentavat välit Venäjän kanssa.
3. Obaman mukaan Israelin ja palestiinalaisten status quo ei hyödytä kumpaakaan osapuolta. Status quo vahingoittaa Israelin turvallisuuta sekä myös alueellista turvallisuutta. Obama ei näe, miten tilannetta voisi ratkaista tavalla, jossa Israel pysyy sekä juutalaisena valtiona että demokratiana, mikäli kahta valtiota ei perusteta.
#
QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Are you concerned, Mr. President, that commuting Chelsea Manning’s sentence will send a message that leaking classified material will not generate (inaudible) groups like WikiLeaks? How do you reconcile that in light of WikiLeak’s connection to Russia’s acting in (inaudible) election?
And related to that, Julian Assange has now offered to come to the United States. Are you seeking that? And would he be charged or arrested if he came here?
OBAMA: Well, first of all, let’s be clear. Chelsea Manning has served a tough prison sentence, so the notion that the average person who was thinking about disclosing vital classified information would think that it goes unpunished I don’t think would get that impression from the sentence that Chelsea Manning has served.
It has been my view that given she went to trial; that due process was carried out; that she took responsibility for her crime; that the sentence that she received was very disproportional — disproportionate relative to what other leakers had received; and that she had served a significant amount of time, that it made sense to commute and not pardon her sentence.
And, you know, I feel very comfortable that justice has been served and that a message has still been sent that when it comes to our national security, that wherever possible we need folks who may have legitimate concerns about the actions of government or their superiors or the agencies in which they work, that they try to work through the established channels and avail themselves of the whistleblower protections that have been put in place.
I recognize that there’s some folks who think they’re not enough. And, you know, I think all of us when we’re working in big institutions may find ourselves at times at odds with policies that are set. But when it comes to national security, we’re often dealing with people in the field whose lives may be put at risk or, you know, the safety and security and the ability of our military or our intelligence teams or our embassies to function effectively.
And that has to be kept in mind. So, with respect to WikiLeaks, I don’t see a contradiction. First of all, I haven’t commented on WikiLeaks generally. The conclusions of the intelligence community with respect to the Russian hacking were not conclusive as to whether WikiLeaks was witting or not in being the conduit through which we heard about the DNC e-mails that were leaked. I don’t pay a lot of attention to Mr. Assange’s tweets, so that wasn’t a consideration in this instance. And I’d refer you to the Justice Department for any criminal investigations, indictments, extradition issues that may come up with him.
You know, I — what I can say broadly is that in this new cyber age, we’re going to have to make sure that we continually work to find the right balance of accountability and openness and transparency that is the hallmark of our democracy. But also recognize that there are adversaries and bad actors out there who want to use that same openness in ways that hurt us, whether that’s in trying to commit financial crimes or trying to commit acts of terrorism or folks who want to interfere with our elections.
And we’re going to have to continually build the kind of architecture to make sure our — the best of our democracy is preserved; that our national security and intelligence agencies have the ability to carry out policy without advertising to our adversaries what it is that we’re doing, but do so in a way that still keeps citizens up to speed on what their government is doing on their behalf.
But with respect to Chelsea Manning, I looked at the particulars of this case the same way I have the other commutations and pardons that I’ve done. And I felt that in light of all the circumstances, that commuting her sentence was entirely appropriate.
(…)
QUESTION: Thank you.
The president-elect has said that he would consider lifting sanctions on Russia if they substantially reduced their nuclear stockpile.
QUESTION: Given your own efforts at arms control, do you think that’s an effective strategy? Knowing this office and Mr. Trump, how would you advise his advisers to help him be effective when he deals with Vladimir Putin. And given your actions recently on Russia, do you think those sanctions should be (inaudible).
OBAMA: Well, a couple of things. Number one, I think it is in America’s interest and the world’s interest that we have a constructive relationship with Russia. That’s been my approach throughout my presidency. Where our interests have overlapped we’ve worked together.
At the beginning of my term, I did what I could to encourage Russia to be a constructive member of the international community and tried to work with the president and the government of Russia in helping them diversify their economy, improve their economy, use the incredible talents of the Russian people in more constructive ways.
I think it’s fair to say that after President Putin came back into the presidency, that an escalating anti-American rhetoric and an approach to global affairs that seem to be premised on the idea that whatever America’s trying to do must be bad for Russians, so we want to try to counter act whatever they do. That returned to an adversarial spirit that I think existed during the Cold War, has made the relationship more difficult.
And it was hammered home when Russia went into Crimea and portions of Ukraine. The reason we imposed the sanctions, recall, was not because of nuclear weapons issues, it was because the independence and sovereignty of a country, Ukraine, had been encroached upon by force, by Russia. That wasn’t our judgment, that was the judgment of the entire international community.
And, Russia continues to occupy Ukrainian territory and meddle in Ukrainian affairs and support military surrogates who have violated basic international laws and international norms. What I’ve said to the Russians, is as soon as you stop doing that, the sanctions will be removed. And I think it would probably best serve, not only American interests, but also the interests of preserving international norms if we made sure that we don’t confuse why these sanctions have been imposed with a whole set of other issues.
On nuclear issues, in my first term we negotiated the START II Treaty and that has substantially reduced our nuclear stock piles, both Russia and the United States. I was prepared to go further, I told President Putin I was prepared to go further. They have been unwilling to negotiate.
If President-elect Trump is able to restart those talks in a serious way, I think there remains a lot of room for our two countries to reduce their our stock piles. And part of the reason we’ve have been successful on our non-proliferation agenda and on our nuclear security agenda, is because we were leading by example. I hope that continues.
But I think it’s important just to remember that the reason sanctions have been put in place against Russia, has to do with their actions in Ukraine. And it is important for the United States to stand up for the basic principal that big countries don’t go around and invade and bully smaller countries.
I’ve said before, I expect Russia and Ukraine to have a strong relationship. They are historically bound together in all sorts of cultural and social ways, but Ukraine is an independent country and this is a good example of the vital role that America has to continue to play, around the world, in preserving basic norms and values. Whether it’s advocating on behalf of human rights, advocating on behalf of women’s rights, advocating on behalf of freedom of the press.
OBAMA: You know, the United States has not always been perfect in this regard, there are times where we — by necessity are dealing with allies or friends or partners, who themselves are not meeting the standards that we would like to see met when it comes to international rules and norms.
But I can tell you that in every multilateral setting in the United Nations, in the G-20, in the G-7, the United States typically has been on the right side of these issues and it is important for us to continue to be on the right side of these issues because if we, the largest, strongest country and democracy in the world, are not willing to stand up on behalf of these values, then certainly China, Russia and others will not.
(…)
QUESTION: Mr. President you have been criticized and even (inaudible) attacked for the U.N. Security Council resolution that considered Israeli settlements illegal and an obstacle to peace. Mr. Trump promised to move the embassy to Jerusalem. He appointed an ambassador that doesn’t believe in a two-state solution.
How worried are you about the U.S. leadership in the Arab world and beyond as (inaudible)? With this ignite (inaudible) protect Israel? And in retrospect, do you think that you should have held Israel more accountable, like President Bush Senior did with (inaudible)? Thank you.
OBAMA: I am — I continue to be significantly worried about the Israeli-Palestinian issue. And I’m worried about it both because I think the status quo is unsustainable, that it is dangerous for Israel, that it is bad for Palestinians, it is bad for the region and it is bad for America’s national security.
OBAMA: And you know, I came into this office wanting to do everything I could to encourage serious peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians. And we invested a lot of energy, a lot of time, a lot of effort first year, second year, all the way until last year. Ultimately, what has always been clear is that we cannot force the parties to arrive at peace. What we can do is facilitate, provide a platform, encourage, but we can’t force them to do it. But in light of shifts in Israeli politics and Palestinian politics, a rightward drift in Israeli politics, weakening of President Abbas’ ability to move and take risks on behalf of peace in the Palestinian territories.
In light of all the dangers that have emerged in the region and the understandable fears that Israelis may have about the chaos and rise of groups like ISIL and the deterioration of Syria, in light of all those things, what we at least wanted to do, understanding that the two parties wouldn’t actually arrive at a final status agreement, is to preserve the possibility of the two-state solution because we do not see an alternative to it.
And I’ve said this directly to Prime Minister Netanyahu, I’ve said it inside of Israel, I’ve said it to Palestinians as well. I don’t see how this issue gets resolved in a way that maintains Israel as both Jewish and a democracy. Because if you do not have two states, then in some form or fashion you are extending an occupation, functionally you end up having one state in which millions of people are disenfranchised and operate as second class residents.
You can’t even call them citizens necessarily. And so – so the goal of the resolution was to simply say that the settlements, the growth of the settlements are creating a reality on the ground that increasingly will make a two-state solution impossible. And we’ve believed consistent with the position that has been taken with previous U.S. administrations for decades now that it was important for us to send a signal, a wakeup call that this moment may be passing.
And Israeli voters and Palestinians need to understand that this moment may be passing. And – and hopefully, that then creates a debate inside both Israeli and Palestinian communities that won’t result immediately in peace but at least will lead to a more sober assessment of what the alternatives are. So, the president-elect will have his own policy. The ambassador or the candidate for the ambassadorship obviously has very different views than I do.
That is their prerogative, that’s part of what happens after elections, and I think my views are clear. We’ll see how – how their approach plays itself out. I don’t want to – I don’t want to project today what could end up happening but obviously it’s a volatile environment. What we’ve seen in the past is when sudden unilateral moves are made that speak to some of the core issues and sensitivities of either side, that can be explosive.
And what we’ve tried to do in the transition is just provide the context in which the president-elect may want to make some of these decisions.
(…)
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/us/politics/obama-final-press-conference.html?_r=0
http://yle.fi/uutiset/3-9411228
Artikkelissa tarkoitetaan, että Assange on piileskellyt Ecuadorin suurlähetystössä, ei siis Perun.