1. Número 1 · Enero 2015

  2. Número 2 · Enero 2015

  3. Número 3 · Enero 2015

  4. Número 4 · Febrero 2015

  5. Número 5 · Febrero 2015

  6. Número 6 · Febrero 2015

  7. Número 7 · Febrero 2015

  8. Número 8 · Marzo 2015

  9. Número 9 · Marzo 2015

  10. Número 10 · Marzo 2015

  11. Número 11 · Marzo 2015

  12. Número 12 · Abril 2015

  13. Número 13 · Abril 2015

  14. Número 14 · Abril 2015

  15. Número 15 · Abril 2015

  16. Número 16 · Mayo 2015

  17. Número 17 · Mayo 2015

  18. Número 18 · Mayo 2015

  19. Número 19 · Mayo 2015

  20. Número 20 · Junio 2015

  21. Número 21 · Junio 2015

  22. Número 22 · Junio 2015

  23. Número 23 · Junio 2015

  24. Número 24 · Julio 2015

  25. Número 25 · Julio 2015

  26. Número 26 · Julio 2015

  27. Número 27 · Julio 2015

  28. Número 28 · Septiembre 2015

  29. Número 29 · Septiembre 2015

  30. Número 30 · Septiembre 2015

  31. Número 31 · Septiembre 2015

  32. Número 32 · Septiembre 2015

  33. Número 33 · Octubre 2015

  34. Número 34 · Octubre 2015

  35. Número 35 · Octubre 2015

  36. Número 36 · Octubre 2015

  37. Número 37 · Noviembre 2015

  38. Número 38 · Noviembre 2015

  39. Número 39 · Noviembre 2015

  40. Número 40 · Noviembre 2015

  41. Número 41 · Diciembre 2015

  42. Número 42 · Diciembre 2015

  43. Número 43 · Diciembre 2015

  44. Número 44 · Diciembre 2015

  45. Número 45 · Diciembre 2015

  46. Número 46 · Enero 2016

  47. Número 47 · Enero 2016

  48. Número 48 · Enero 2016

  49. Número 49 · Enero 2016

  50. Número 50 · Febrero 2016

  51. Número 51 · Febrero 2016

  52. Número 52 · Febrero 2016

  53. Número 53 · Febrero 2016

  54. Número 54 · Marzo 2016

  55. Número 55 · Marzo 2016

  56. Número 56 · Marzo 2016

  57. Número 57 · Marzo 2016

  58. Número 58 · Marzo 2016

  59. Número 59 · Abril 2016

  60. Número 60 · Abril 2016

  61. Número 61 · Abril 2016

  62. Número 62 · Abril 2016

  63. Número 63 · Mayo 2016

  64. Número 64 · Mayo 2016

  65. Número 65 · Mayo 2016

  66. Número 66 · Mayo 2016

  67. Número 67 · Junio 2016

  68. Número 68 · Junio 2016

  69. Número 69 · Junio 2016

  70. Número 70 · Junio 2016

  71. Número 71 · Junio 2016

  72. Número 72 · Julio 2016

  73. Número 73 · Julio 2016

  74. Número 74 · Julio 2016

  75. Número 75 · Julio 2016

  76. Número 76 · Agosto 2016

  77. Número 77 · Agosto 2016

  78. Número 78 · Agosto 2016

  79. Número 79 · Agosto 2016

  80. Número 80 · Agosto 2016

  81. Número 81 · Septiembre 2016

  82. Número 82 · Septiembre 2016

  83. Número 83 · Septiembre 2016

  84. Número 84 · Septiembre 2016

  85. Número 85 · Octubre 2016

  86. Número 86 · Octubre 2016

  87. Número 87 · Octubre 2016

  88. Número 88 · Octubre 2016

  89. Número 89 · Noviembre 2016

  90. Número 90 · Noviembre 2016

  91. Número 91 · Noviembre 2016

  92. Número 92 · Noviembre 2016

  93. Número 93 · Noviembre 2016

  94. Número 94 · Diciembre 2016

  95. Número 95 · Diciembre 2016

  96. Número 96 · Diciembre 2016

  97. Número 97 · Diciembre 2016

  98. Número 98 · Enero 2017

  99. Número 99 · Enero 2017

  100. Número 100 · Enero 2017

  101. Número 101 · Enero 2017

  102. Número 102 · Febrero 2017

  103. Número 103 · Febrero 2017

  104. Número 104 · Febrero 2017

  105. Número 105 · Febrero 2017

  106. Número 106 · Marzo 2017

  107. Número 107 · Marzo 2017

  108. Número 108 · Marzo 2017

  109. Número 109 · Marzo 2017

  110. Número 110 · Marzo 2017

  111. Número 111 · Abril 2017

  112. Número 112 · Abril 2017

  113. Número 113 · Abril 2017

  114. Número 114 · Abril 2017

  115. Número 115 · Mayo 2017

  116. Número 116 · Mayo 2017

  117. Número 117 · Mayo 2017

  118. Número 118 · Mayo 2017

  119. Número 119 · Mayo 2017

  120. Número 120 · Junio 2017

  121. Número 121 · Junio 2017

  122. Número 122 · Junio 2017

  123. Número 123 · Junio 2017

  124. Número 124 · Julio 2017

  125. Número 125 · Julio 2017

  126. Número 126 · Julio 2017

  127. Número 127 · Julio 2017

  128. Número 128 · Agosto 2017

  129. Número 129 · Agosto 2017

  130. Número 130 · Agosto 2017

  131. Número 131 · Agosto 2017

  132. Número 132 · Agosto 2017

  133. Número 133 · Septiembre 2017

  134. Número 134 · Septiembre 2017

  135. Número 135 · Septiembre 2017

  136. Número 136 · Septiembre 2017

  137. Número 137 · Octubre 2017

  138. Número 138 · Octubre 2017

  139. Número 139 · Octubre 2017

  140. Número 140 · Octubre 2017

  141. Número 141 · Noviembre 2017

  142. Número 142 · Noviembre 2017

  143. Número 143 · Noviembre 2017

  144. Número 144 · Noviembre 2017

  145. Número 145 · Noviembre 2017

  146. Número 146 · Diciembre 2017

  147. Número 147 · Diciembre 2017

  148. Número 148 · Diciembre 2017

  149. Número 149 · Diciembre 2017

  150. Número 150 · Enero 2018

  151. Número 151 · Enero 2018

  152. Número 152 · Enero 2018

  153. Número 153 · Enero 2018

  154. Número 154 · Enero 2018

  155. Número 155 · Febrero 2018

  156. Número 156 · Febrero 2018

  157. Número 157 · Febrero 2018

  158. Número 158 · Febrero 2018

  159. Número 159 · Marzo 2018

  160. Número 160 · Marzo 2018

  161. Número 161 · Marzo 2018

  162. Número 162 · Marzo 2018

  163. Número 163 · Abril 2018

  164. Número 164 · Abril 2018

  165. Número 165 · Abril 2018

  166. Número 166 · Abril 2018

  167. Número 167 · Mayo 2018

  168. Número 168 · Mayo 2018

  169. Número 169 · Mayo 2018

  170. Número 170 · Mayo 2018

  171. Número 171 · Mayo 2018

  172. Número 172 · Junio 2018

  173. Número 173 · Junio 2018

  174. Número 174 · Junio 2018

  175. Número 175 · Junio 2018

  176. Número 176 · Julio 2018

  177. Número 177 · Julio 2018

  178. Número 178 · Julio 2018

  179. Número 179 · Julio 2018

  180. Número 180 · Agosto 2018

  181. Número 181 · Agosto 2018

  182. Número 182 · Agosto 2018

  183. Número 183 · Agosto 2018

  184. Número 184 · Agosto 2018

  185. Número 185 · Septiembre 2018

  186. Número 186 · Septiembre 2018

  187. Número 187 · Septiembre 2018

  188. Número 188 · Septiembre 2018

  189. Número 189 · Octubre 2018

  190. Número 190 · Octubre 2018

  191. Número 191 · Octubre 2018

  192. Número 192 · Octubre 2018

  193. Número 193 · Octubre 2018

  194. Número 194 · Noviembre 2018

  195. Número 195 · Noviembre 2018

  196. Número 196 · Noviembre 2018

  197. Número 197 · Noviembre 2018

  198. Número 198 · Diciembre 2018

  199. Número 199 · Diciembre 2018

  200. Número 200 · Diciembre 2018

  201. Número 201 · Diciembre 2018

  202. Número 202 · Enero 2019

  203. Número 203 · Enero 2019

  204. Número 204 · Enero 2019

  205. Número 205 · Enero 2019

  206. Número 206 · Enero 2019

  207. Número 207 · Febrero 2019

  208. Número 208 · Febrero 2019

  209. Número 209 · Febrero 2019

  210. Número 210 · Febrero 2019

  211. Número 211 · Marzo 2019

  212. Número 212 · Marzo 2019

  213. Número 213 · Marzo 2019

  214. Número 214 · Marzo 2019

  215. Número 215 · Abril 2019

  216. Número 216 · Abril 2019

  217. Número 217 · Abril 2019

  218. Número 218 · Abril 2019

  219. Número 219 · Mayo 2019

  220. Número 220 · Mayo 2019

  221. Número 221 · Mayo 2019

  222. Número 222 · Mayo 2019

  223. Número 223 · Mayo 2019

  224. Número 224 · Junio 2019

  225. Número 225 · Junio 2019

  226. Número 226 · Junio 2019

  227. Número 227 · Junio 2019

  228. Número 228 · Julio 2019

  229. Número 229 · Julio 2019

  230. Número 230 · Julio 2019

  231. Número 231 · Julio 2019

  232. Número 232 · Julio 2019

  233. Número 233 · Agosto 2019

  234. Número 234 · Agosto 2019

  235. Número 235 · Agosto 2019

  236. Número 236 · Agosto 2019

  237. Número 237 · Septiembre 2019

  238. Número 238 · Septiembre 2019

  239. Número 239 · Septiembre 2019

  240. Número 240 · Septiembre 2019

  241. Número 241 · Octubre 2019

  242. Número 242 · Octubre 2019

  243. Número 243 · Octubre 2019

  244. Número 244 · Octubre 2019

  245. Número 245 · Octubre 2019

  246. Número 246 · Noviembre 2019

  247. Número 247 · Noviembre 2019

  248. Número 248 · Noviembre 2019

  249. Número 249 · Noviembre 2019

  250. Número 250 · Diciembre 2019

  251. Número 251 · Diciembre 2019

  252. Número 252 · Diciembre 2019

  253. Número 253 · Diciembre 2019

  254. Número 254 · Enero 2020

  255. Número 255 · Enero 2020

  256. Número 256 · Enero 2020

  257. Número 257 · Febrero 2020

  258. Número 258 · Marzo 2020

  259. Número 259 · Abril 2020

  260. Número 260 · Mayo 2020

  261. Número 261 · Junio 2020

  262. Número 262 · Julio 2020

  263. Número 263 · Agosto 2020

  264. Número 264 · Septiembre 2020

  265. Número 265 · Octubre 2020

  266. Número 266 · Noviembre 2020

  267. Número 267 · Diciembre 2020

  268. Número 268 · Enero 2021

  269. Número 269 · Febrero 2021

  270. Número 270 · Marzo 2021

  271. Número 271 · Abril 2021

  272. Número 272 · Mayo 2021

CTXT necesita 15.000 socias/os para seguir creciendo. Suscríbete a CTXT

Chase Madar / Autor de ‘The passion of Manning’

“Manning is a person of conscience who’s willing to act on it”

Álvaro Guzmán Bastida Nueva York , 17/05/2017

<p>Chase Madar, en una imagen reciente.</p>

Chase Madar, en una imagen reciente.

Cedida por el entrevistado

A diferencia de otros medios, en CTXT mantenemos todos nuestros artículos en abierto. Nuestra apuesta es recuperar el espíritu de la prensa independiente: ser un servicio público. Si puedes permitirte pagar 4 euros al mes, apoya a CTXT. ¡Suscríbete!

Necesitamos tu ayuda para realizar las obras en la Redacción que nos permitan seguir creciendo. Puedes hacer una donación libre aquí

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 5 April 2010, then-obscure website WikiLeaks published a U.S. military video showing the murder of a dozen people, including two Reutersreporters, in a Baghdad suburb. It later became apparent that the video had been leaked by a novice intelligence analyst then-named Bradley Manning, who exposed himself when he confided in a hacker-turned-government informant on an online chatroom. Manning, who later became transgender and now goes by Chelsea, went on to expose nearly 750,000 classified documents about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as U.S. State Department Cables. She spent eleven months in solitary confinement before her court-martial, in which she was given a 35-year sentence. What drove Manning to carry out the biggest information leak in U.S. history? What were the consequences of her leaks, both politically and to Manning herself? Civil rights attorney and writer Chase Madar, author of “The passion of [Chelsea] Manning” sat down with CTXT in his Brooklyn house to discuss Manning’s trajectory, the politics around it, and the latest turn in her story: the eleventh-hour decision by Barack Obama to commute her sentence, which will have her out of prison before May 17.

You argue that Chelsea Manning deserves a Presidential Medal of Freedom. That goes to counter most of the public debate around her. What’s the case for her being honored?

I think that her leak is a very good thing for the world and especially for the United States. The unthinking assumption for most journalists and politicians going into this has been that the leaks are, by definition, a security liability. That's a very faulty definition of security. Security has to be measured in terms of risk, blood, and money. The incredible foreign policy catastrophe that was the invasion of Iraq, where one of the primary causes was government secrecy and distortion and lies, shows that secrecy is not a national security benefit always. It can very easily be a huge liability. Too often, the framing of all national security discussions related to information has been balancing security and transparency. That supposes that the more transparency you have, the less security you have. That's absolutely false. You really have to weigh it as transparency versus secrecy. Right now, government policy is very, very far on the end of secrecy. Even though Manning’s was the biggest leak in U.S. history, is still less than 1% of what the federal government classifies in any given year. 

Let’s step back and look at Manning and her motivations. You write that she was a most unlikely soldier. What drove her to enlist in the midst of two bloody wars?

I think lack of alternatives. This is someone who was adrift, someone who probably would have done very well in university studying science or physics or IT, but didn't really have the opportunity. She was expected to really fend for herself from age 17. Neither the state nor her father, who had money, felt any real obligation to help her with paying for tuition. After drifting for a couple of years, she enlisted, hoping to get experience, some travel, as well as financial support for a college education. It’s a common story.

Manning went through bullying and abuse from very early on in her military career. And yet, she managed to pull through until she was deployed to Iraq, a mission which you write she was very hopeful about. What made her hopeful about getting to Iraq?

Being five foot two, being pretty visibly gay, and being an independent thinker, she got all kinds of abuse in basic training. She got picked on by the drill sergeant, by other soldiers, and didn't do much better in the discharge unit. But she stuck with it. Many people really thought Operation Iraqi Freedom was going to be about Iraqi freedom. It also has to be said, the military, in spite of many things, stuck with Manning, because they desperately needed people with IT skills. This was at a very low point where it's already pretty clear that the Iraq War is a mess. As with anyone doing any kind of training, she was eager to get to the action. 

You spend some time dissecting Manning’s confessions in an online chat room where she confided in notorious hacker Adrian Lamo who was working as an informant. You conclude her motives were political. How does she go from being hopeful about her deployment to Iraq to turning to WikiLeaks with the classified material about the war? 

Much of the journalism about Manning has been looking at psychological motives, and can't even comprehend what a political motive is. That's a very common response to whistleblowers. “How can you say you're leaking out of principle? There must be something wrong with you mentally. You must be crazy.” 

This is someone who sees that instead of this nice Peace Corps-like effort to rebuild Iraqi society, there's a bloody counterinsurgency war, and that American troops are helping while the Iraqi authorities commit acts of torture, round up political dissidents. That's the example she gives in the chat logs, that the turning point for her was when she found out that Iraqi authorities had arrested a group of everyday Iraqis who were handing out a pamphlet criticizing the Maliki government for corruption. Manning ran to her commanding officer saying, "Hey, we have to stop this." The commanding officer, according to Manning, tells the soldier, "Just shut up and get back to work. We've got to meet our goals and quotas.”

She had access to this larger picture partly because of her duties, being in IT. What sort of stuff was she exposed to there?

Working in Army intelligence, it was very easy to get access to all kinds of intelligence that the government thought it would be good to share and decompartmentalize after the 9/11 attacks, whether diplomatic or from the wars. People had war porn on in the background, in the SCIF, the room for all the Army intelligence people with security clearance at Forward Operating Base Hammer in Iraq. People were watching snuff films about the conflict, or scenes from Afghanistan. They're broadcast on a big screen in the background, or sometimes just on each individual computer monitor. Scenes like the most famous of the WikiLeaks --the gunsight view of that small crowd of people in July 2007 that gets gunned down by an Apache helicopter.

With so many people being exposed to these things, what made Manning special in that only she made them public? 

Yeah, why aren't there more people doing this? It's ridiculously easy to exfiltrate the information. It's chilling, in a way, that more people didn't do this. As for why Manning, she’s a person of conscience who's willing to back that up and to act on it. I think that's one of the reasons why Manning deserves the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Beyond that instance where she told her superiors about the rounding up of Iraqi dissidents, there's a lot of speculation every time there's a whistle-blower that there are internal channels that they can use rather than leaking to the press. What could she have done differently?

Absolutely nothing. The whistleblower protection laws are just an absolute nullity, a futile joke. They're hopeless, and for many reasons. There's a huge carve-out under existing laws for anything related to national security. Anything taking place in a live theater of war would fit in that easily.  Second, it's possible for the government to interpret illegality, fraud, waste, wrongdoing, very narrowly. Many of the worst things that are done in a war are perfectly legal. To go back to that helicopter gunsight video, the most famous of the leaks, people look at that and think, "Wow, that must be a war crime." In fact, according to the laws of armed conflict, it is okay to do that. Neither Human Rights Watch nor Amnesty International issued any kind of complaint or criticism. I talked to people at these groups. They're like, "Well yeah, the law is vague on that. International law is at the disappearing end of law, and the laws of war are at the disappearing end of international law."

You mentioned the helicopter video, but she went through various batches of leaks, which included the Iraq War logs, the Afghan War logs, and the State Department tables. What did she reveal, and what were the consequences of her revelations?

The Iraq War logs and the Afghan War logs are mosaic portraits of the war, with snapshots. Individual field reports from military operations. It gives you a panoramic sense of what's going on in the war with the 1000 little pieces.They tell a very important truth about the war that's different from the heavily processed version that comes from press conferences. What you see is a lot of things going wrong, a lot of futility. In Afghanistan, you have night raids gone wrong, where U.S and coalition soldiers raid the wrong village, kill the wrong people. You have outposts that are laboriously built and then abandoned. The CIA apparently built the outpost that the military just dropped the MOAB, ‘Mother of all bombs,’ on. It's a very realistic, very unflattering portrait of a counterinsurgency war that is going very poorly. In Iraq, we learned about numerous checkpoint shootings, and also learned that the Iraqi authorities were still committing acts of torture under the noses of occupying troops. Then you have the State Department cables. Again, it’s hard trying to justify those under whistleblower law: everything they showed was legal. Much of it is absolutely horrible at the same time. There are just disgusting things, like the U.S. exerting political pressure on Haiti,the poorest country in the Americas to keep the minimum wage down, or pushing hard to get a patent law regime that favors Big Pharma in western Europe. 

Manning was aware of the significance of a lot of this. She told Lamo she was hoping her revelations would bring about change. Did they? What was their impact politically?

She talks in the chatroom about how people are going to freak out when they see these things. That happened to a little degree, but they have not led to sweeping, lasting changes in U.S. foreign policy.    

You point out the revelations did have a big impact in the Middle East, leading to a lot of the protests that helped spark the Arab Spring. The State Department cables led to outrage in places like Latin America. Why was there this divergent reception?

U.S. foreign policy is much more consequential outside the U.S. than inside. Americans were very insulated from the consequences. Even a war like the Iraq War, it kills 4500 Americans and injures many more, but we get a tax break at the same time. It's an all-volunteer military. For the middle and upper class, war is just something you see on TV.

Back to Manning, what happened after Lamo turned her in?

She gets treated horribly. I would call it torture. She spent eleven months in punitive solitary confinement before her court martial. That's designed to break people. The justification was that it would keep her from committing suicide. It's one of Obama's worst moments, when he was asked about this at a press conference, and said, "I know it may seem harsh, but it's really for the soldier's own good." We know now that the military doctor was saying, "No, this is not for the soldier's own good. This is immensely harmful. There's no medical need for it." It was punishment for its own sake, and very severe punishment. Obama got away with a lot prosecuting whistleblowers because he's a Democrat.

About that, Obama comes to power saying he's going to have a more open Presidency, and is not going to go after whistleblowers. Yet he prosecutes more than all presidents before him. Why was that?

It was just the default setting of his national security apparatus, something that was widely supported by the legislative and the judicial branch. There was a small price to pay: the significant minority of people who were upset about the harsh treatment of whistleblowers were not going to turn around and vote Republican anyway. 

Beyond the heightened rhetoric about how she ought to be executed, the official response to Manning was that she broke the law and in particular her military oath. Didn't she?

Yes, absolutely. I think there's no question that Manning violated the law as it's come to be known. She was convicted of violating the Espionage Act of 1917, which was passed during the war fever of World War One, and was designed really not with domestic leakers in mind, but actual spies. It got repurposed by the Nixon administration to go after Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers. That's a prosecution that most people, even most nice liberals, think was very misguided. 

There aren't that many differences in the alleged crimes Ellsberg had committed. Why is he a hero to liberals, while Manning suffered in silence for the most part?

First of all, the opinion class in the United States, people work at the nonprofits, the universities, the legal profession, the media, they were less insulated from the Vietnam War than they are today. Even though it was pretty easy to get a student deferment for their kids, there was still at least a theoretical chance that Junior could get sent to the rice paddies to die and to kill. There was a real, visceral reaction to that, whereas the Iraq War is, it's an all-volunteer army that came with a tax cut. Many liberals supported it.  Also, you had a widely loathed Republican prosecuting Ellsberg. Nixon came out very criminal, compared to a very smooth Democrat, Obama, who was very disciplined, not corrupt, not breaking the law, just enforcing it in a very nasty, harsh way. The opinion class isn't going to go against a Democrat doing these horrible things. They just don't want to.

Some have described Manning’s treatment as un-american. Do you agree?

I don’t. Some people say, "Oh my God, this is the war on terror coming back home. The treatment that we inflicted on people at Abu Ghraib and Guántanamo and Bagram, now we're doing it to people here." That's a small part of it, but you could more accurately say, "No, the harsh way we American criminals in our prisons, we brought that to Abu Ghraib. We brought that to Bagram." We treat people at home is just horrible. We have between 70,000 and 100,000 people in American prisons doing long-term solitary, and it drives people crazy. 

And yet, there was a turn: two days before the end of Obama’s Presidency, he commuted Manning’s sentence. Was that something you expected?

No, I was absolutely shocked. I think it's great that Obama did that. A full pardon would have been more appropriate. A pardon expunges the criminal record, whereas a commutation just means you maintain the criminal record, but you're let out early. I think the Medal of Freedom would be a good thing, as we discussed already. Obama did the right thing, and it took some political courage to do that. Why did he do it? Partly I think Obama doesn't want to be remembered as the harshest President on leaks and whistleblowers in U.S. history, and that got to him. 

You've been describing how a lot was stacked against Manning, given the politics of the war on terror. Was there some kind of shift in the public perception of Manning's case that allowed Obama to commute her sentence?

Yeah, there's been a very slow shift. Even many people in the national security orthodoxy warmed up to Manning, saying, "She did it at a tough time in her life. She was confused," meaning the transgender thing... I still think that's a false way to think about her motive for leaking, but they were using it sympathetically, or to say, "She at least faced the consequences of her action. She was treated very badly, with unnecessary harshness.”

It's focused on her, not the politics around her motives.

Absolutely. This I find amazing. I would have thought six months ago that in order to get any kind of clemency, you're going to have to debate, not Manning herself, but the leaks and their national security benefit. That turned out not to be the case. The fact that Manning was transgender opened up this story to a whole new audience. Her first interview after her conviction was not with some left-wing source or author, but in Cosmopolitan magazine. I think this was brilliant. Did not talk about the leaks very much at all. It was all about, "Wow, it's so brave of you to come out as transgender in a prison and to face that." Instead of being a liability, it ended up being a net asset to the story. It became impossible to ignore.

What can she expect her life to be like now? What sorts of challenges and opportunities does she face?

I've read that she's going to live with her aunt, who seems like a very stable, good person. Poor Manning got born into a very rough family where both her parents are alcoholic wrecks. Going there in suburban Maryland, I think she's going to have some opportunities working in journalism or the nonprofit sector, where people will know she was prosecuted for all these things and convicted, but will see past that. It's very tough to adjust for anyone for life out of prison. She's been in for seven years. I wish her all the best.

Autor >

Álvaro Guzmán Bastida

Nacido en Pamplona en plenos Sanfermines, ha vivido en Barcelona, Londres, Misuri, Carolina del Norte, Macondo, Buenos Aires y, ahora, Nueva York. Dicen que estudió dos másteres, de Periodismo y Política, en Columbia, que trabajó en Al Jazeera, y que tiene los pies planos. Escribe sobre política, economía, cultura y movimientos sociales, pero en realidad, solo le importa el resultado de Osasuna el domingo.

Suscríbete a CTXT

Orgullosas
de llegar tarde
a las últimas noticias

Gracias a tu suscripción podemos ejercer un periodismo público y en libertad.
¿Quieres suscribirte a CTXT por solo 6 euros al mes? Pulsa aquí

Artículos relacionados >

Deja un comentario


Los comentarios solo están habilitados para las personas suscritas a CTXT. Puedes suscribirte aquí