Bradley Manning | News

Russell Brand, Phil Donahue, Oliver Stone Declare They are Bradley Manning in New Video: WATCH


Phil Donahue, Oliver Stone, Russell Brand, Peter Sarsgaard, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Wallace Shawn, Tom Morello and Moby are among the celebrities appearing in a new video in support of Wikileaks soldier Bradley Manning, whose trial began this week.

"When you join the military, are you asked to keep any war crimes you might see secret?", the video asks, before each of the actors says, "I am Bradley Manning."


Feed This post's comment feed


  1. Something's up. The celebrities are gathering. It's headshot video message time!

    Posted by: gb | Jun 4, 2013 7:22:06 PM

  2. Something's up. The celebrities are gathering. It's headshot video message time!

    Posted by: gb | Jun 4, 2013 7:22:06 PM

  3. Why should we care what some has been a and/or b list smucks think

    Posted by: Lee | Jun 4, 2013 7:29:08 PM

  4. What's up is awareness of history, and the rise in power of the security state where not only are they going after Manning, but have started to threatened reporters with prosecution.

    We are in a very dangerous place right now as a society. Its not just about Manning. The awareness of history is about how similar this is to the Pentagon Paper, and that leaks like they are a necessary part of a healthy democracy rather than one slowly moving towards a security state.

    First it was Manning, then Weakileaks, and now they are coming after establishment reporters. Who is next?

    Posted by: Factoid | Jun 4, 2013 7:30:41 PM

  5. Just love being "outraged" 24/7? Self-imploding is fun too. You'll find that today's rage is tomorrow's old magazine cover. It's not awareness, it's overdose. Believe me, I've lived through many more "scandals" than you. Is this a missive from the north?

    Posted by: JG | Jun 4, 2013 7:39:22 PM

  6. When people don't have anything to say to the substantive point, they turn it into a battle of personalities.

    Essentially the same statements would be attacking whoever is criticizing the security state.

    "oh, you are just stars!" "Oh you are just outraged" "oh, you are just...."

    Its not a real debate when one side is just not willing to do anything other than change the subject.

    What this is really about the power grab the state.

    Yo would not know that reading JG

    Posted by: Factoid | Jun 4, 2013 8:02:32 PM

  7. By the way, I don't care whether stars support this or not, but I do hope the point of what's happening does start to get out there.

    There's a lot of good this administration has done on gay rights. Civil liberties, the right of citizens to protest actions of our government, is not one of them.

    Manning is just a tip of a really large ice berg right now of the state silencing critiques through criminalizing the process of underscoring what the government is doing.

    Posted by: Factoid | Jun 4, 2013 8:06:28 PM

  8. I'm really glad more people are becoming aware of this issue. Thanks to the people who made this advert. Hopefully, Bradley Manning will be absolved from this court martial.

    Posted by: Phillip | Jun 4, 2013 8:11:11 PM

  9. This Manning story has been out for some time. It's just coming to trial. If he weren't gay I doubt he would be getting any play here. You'd have to check Slate. If you were not concerned about personality you might use your name Factoid. Your anger mirrors the Canadian. Everything you fear is dated cliche. Being militant is all you've got. It makes you feel relevant.

    Posted by: JG | Jun 4, 2013 8:28:47 PM

  10. Glad the support for Bradley is picking up steam.

    Posted by: Chuy | Jun 4, 2013 8:29:42 PM

  11. JG, your rant mirrors those of Ratbastard and Uffda. Perhaps you're yet another alias of a known troll.

    Posted by: MateoM | Jun 4, 2013 8:36:48 PM

  12. The issue, whenever you care to get to it JG, is the increasing power of the security state to quash dissent through criminalizing whistle blowing. I can understand why you don't want to discuss that. I mean- who wants to defend anti-democratic principles- so of course you got to change the subject to make it about personality.

    Posted by: Factoid | Jun 4, 2013 8:37:51 PM

  13. Mateo

    I kind of suspected its the same person too given the odd arguments being made.

    I make a point about security state powers on the rise, they attack me personally with a non sequitur that says nothing about the rising power of the security state. Seems like an ideologue with nothing left to defend their position other than changing the subject, and how many of those are on this site?

    Posted by: Factoid | Jun 4, 2013 8:39:31 PM

  14. I don't play the troll game. This site is spooky that way. My thoughts and words are mine. This is a gay chat line -- Not "Face The Nation' Keep talking code you losers.

    Posted by: JG | Jun 4, 2013 8:46:39 PM

  15. this case has nothing to do with Bradley being gay. He downloaded classified documents. Given his position and security clearance he no doubt was aware of the consequences. His reasons are not a defense even if he believed them to be honorable. The celebrities aren't going to be much help to him. And really these people would have done the same thing????

    Posted by: m | Jun 4, 2013 8:48:03 PM

  16. So, JG, you think its not only your job to turn a serious discussion about the power of the state into one about personality, but to tell the owner of the site what he can and cannot post on his own site?


    Posted by: Factoid | Jun 4, 2013 8:48:59 PM

  17. Go skim some stones Factoid. I agree with m.

    Posted by: JG | Jun 4, 2013 8:58:33 PM

  18. Factoid, unfortunately many people simply do not agreed that leaking military documents on such a large scale without regards for the impact they may have (whether they did in fact cause harm or just in theory could have) and then being held accountable for such an act is an example of the "rising police state". And then to use fear ("you and me are next") tactics is simply more of the same that got us into unjust wars in the first place.

    Posted by: FakeOutrage | Jun 4, 2013 9:02:02 PM

  19. @ Factoid

    It is not possible for the neocons/neoliberals to win a debate based on either empirical evidence or moral principles. Substantive debate is thus off the talbe, so they must make it about their harebrained ideology (which is nothing but a tautology), emotions, or personalities.

    With two devastating defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan now under their belt, the domestic economy in shambles, the neocons/neoliberals have reduced the US to a state where it is hemoraging money and power like never before. And yet the imperial swagger and hubris -- the quixotic quest for world hegemony and full spectrum dominance -- continues as if nothing had ever happened.

    The most striking feature of these neocon/neoliberal types is their utter contempt for fact and reason.

    Posted by: from Mexico | Jun 4, 2013 9:52:33 PM

  20. JG your multiple screen names are sad.

    First, its not fake fear. Its called history, and current events. We know for a fact that the government through the Obama administration has been trying now to intimidate reporters with prosecution for investigating issues related to government actions that they don't want the public to know about, whether its a security risk or not. We know this from from recent reports. we also know historically where this sort of secrecy has lead, both in the U.S. and abroad. Your lack of fear is not a sign that you are a rational person here. Its a sign that you are either in denial or lacking in basic understanding of what all of this means.

    In addition, it doesn't matter the volume of documents that were released. if the government wants to claim these documents produced harm they need to produce the specific harm it produced rather than vaguely stating that any release of information deemed classified is per se a threat. By that standard, anything, including the Pentagon Papers, including any whistle blower who tells the public about corrupt, illegal or embarassing acts of the government would be considered a threat. Its an overbroad application of language that already extremely lose.

    the problem here is that you are an ideologue. You don't seem to care about the ramification or meaning of these various acts by the administration to limit civil liberties and chill dissent.

    Posted by: Factoids | Jun 4, 2013 9:57:33 PM

  21. Mexico, I don't want to assume that everyone who happens to be an ideologue is per se impervious to analysis

    I know that you are likely right, but I don't want to assume it.

    Posted by: Factoids | Jun 4, 2013 10:03:33 PM

  22. @ FakeOutrage

    Obama wants invisible government behind which to hide his adminstrative massacres and other official misdeeds.

    Just what is it about that which you believe the American public does not have a right to know?

    Posted by: from Mexico | Jun 4, 2013 10:10:06 PM

  23. Gay or not you should support Bradley Manning. If you blow the whistle on crime you shouldn't be put in prison. That's just what our government has done to Bradley Manning.

    Posted by: Mike Ryan | Jun 4, 2013 10:10:24 PM

  24. Hmmm--- so we are to take up the mantle of
    a traitor because he is gay? Sorry, not on a bet. He released secrets to the public and the enemy. regardless of how altruistic he thought he was being.

    I actually believe he is being used as a patsy.

    Posted by: HA! | Jun 4, 2013 10:19:11 PM

  25. How sad that people see a hero in this guy and all I see is another sad queen seeking attention. Only this time he put the lives of innocent people in jeopardy.
    I am not a conservative but I do think we need to stop and look at the background of this guy. Did he do it to expose an injustice or did he do it to get back at people for the loneliness of a "Gay" life.
    We Gay people have all been there at some point when we want to lash out at anyone for bullying or not being invited to "Cinderella's Ball(s).
    Please consider the real "Why" of the leaks before you jump on the Manning bandwagon.

    Posted by: Herman | Jun 4, 2013 10:25:28 PM

  26. 1 2 3 »

Post a comment


« «Dan Savage Talks to Thomas Roberts About Monogamy, Marriage, and Rick Santorum: VIDEO« «