talkpolitics | Not quite a hero, not quite the traitor

abomvubuso.livejournal.com posting in

When we hear the name WikiLeaks, we probably instantly imagine its founder Julian Assange. But neither he nor his website would've probably been that famous if back in 2010 one private Bradley Manning hadn't handed them 700,000 secret US reports and diplomatic cables. Now he stood in front of military tribunal and was eventually found guilty on 20 out of 22 charges. Except the most significant one, aiding the enemy.

Still, Manning's sentence has likely confirmed Edward Snowden's biggest fears. And the latter must now be congratulating himself for the decision to leave the US before making his damning revelations that Washington was spying everyone.

25 y.o. Manning was found guilty in espionage, theft, fraud and military crime. But the court didn't fail to mention that his actions hadn't been driven by the "malicious intent" of aiding the enemy, which would've been a transgression to certainly bring him life sentence. But still, the remaining accusations are so serious that the period he could amass behind bars might total 136 years. How many exactly remains to be specified, based on what kind of damage he had caused. But it'll certainly be a helluva long time.

Manning confessed that he had given the documents to WikiLeaks, but he stated that he had done it in order to trigger a debate about US foreign policy, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan. The materials he gave to the public include a video showing an air strike in 2007 Baghdad where several civilians (including a Reuters photographer) were killed in cold blood.

His defense did their best to present him as a naive youngster wanting to expose the military crimes of his government. In contrast, the prosecution claimed he knew of the harm he would be causing. Including the possibility that the data he was publishing would reach Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and it'd be used to hurt Americans (an essentially, the American interests would suffer).

After the court's decision was announced, Julian Assange instantly criticised it. He believes the verdict is a dangerous precedent, and an example of the extremism of national security. Revealing information to the public is not espionage, he argued. He alleged that Manning had been kept in a cage, stripped, held in isolation so they could break him. And this kind of treatment is generally condemned by the UN as torture. "This was never a fair trial", Assange commented to the media.

A large part of the trial went in debating Manning's motives for doing the biggest leak of classified information in US history. Naturally, the opinions are diametrically split on the matter: some call him a hero and a fighter for greater transparency, and have even called for awarding him a Nobel; others consider him a traitor who had put national security at risk.

"I felt I was doing something that would bring me inner peace", Manning himself said at the beginning of the trial. But the criticism to him is that the leaked information could jeopardize human lives if the activities of various informants, spies, human rights activists, journalists, dissidents, victims of violence, prosecuted suspects and others suddenly became public. The positive sides of what he did are that he brought to the light some facts showing irregularities and smelling of lies and outright crimes. The tricky question is, should sensitive information be published at any cost, especially when it could potentially put people's life to risk, create unnecessary tension in diplomatic relations and threaten ongoing and/or past secret secret operations.

Despite the long years in prison that are now Manning's future, absolving him from guilt on the most serious accusation could be viewed as some kind of partial success for his cause. It draws a clear distinction between "traitor" and "someone who publishes classified data", and it could be used in future trials on intel leaks, including the case of Edward Snowden, who's been chased by Washington for revealing details on a massive-scale surveillance program by the US government. If Manning was found guilty on that charge as well, that would potentially mean that anyone who reveals information could be charged with treason, as Al Qaeda could get its hands on it eventually (inside the den of Bin Laden some downloaded WikiLeaks materials had been found).

But this small victory of Manning and his lawyers is little consolation for the future informants and leakers. The attempts of the government to label him a traitor may have failed, granted, but as a whole, the whole case was pretty successful for them. Despite everything, he was sentenced as a spy (i.e. it's not necessary that he had intended to cause harm). And now similar charges of espionage are threatening people like Snowden. And that's sufficient to deprive them of their freedom for a very long time.

This verdict sends a clear message to all government employees that if they break the established rules (like revealing secret information), they'd be charged and found guilty. Now the likes of Manning and Snowden will know that if they discover irregularities in the system, considering the media as the first place they should report them to, would be a grave mistake for them. Obviously, they're supposed to report the case to the government inspectors who have the authority to investigate the alleged crime and propose amendments to prevent further abuse in the future. In case those irregularities are indeed something the government had not intended, or even authorised in the first place. In which case: tough life. That's Realpolitik for you.

Of course, human rights activists believe that Manning's sentence could now have a dramatic sobering effect on those who come across evidence of human rights violations, because now they'd fear arrest and prosecution. In result, a smaller number of people would be publicly reporting about violations. Which would severely affect the right of the public to have access to information, and people's trust that the authorities are ruling by the law of the land. Among some of the documents Manning published there's evidence of some US military personnel violating human rights, especially in Iraq and Yemen. And, instead of starting an investigation and punishing the ones responsible, the US administration had deflected the attention by focusing entirely on Manning's actions.

In other words, they're punishing the one who gave the public the knowledge about the true state of affairs, rather than acting upon the crimes revealed within. I.e., attacking the messenger, not the message. Because they don't like the message. While that's a well-established pattern of behaviour of most authoritarian governments, the fact that it's happening in a country where the "freedom and democracy are the values that we stand for" schtick has become something like a national mantra, and nothing is effectively being done on the matter, can be nothing but disturbing.

Meanwhile, the Manning trial will have consequences on the media as well, particularly the ones that published the leaked information. Right now the US authorities seem to be in something like a schizophrenic position. The administration is simultaneously persecuting those who publish classified documents, and claiming they want to work with Congress on crafting legislation for protecting the freedom of speech. These self-contradicting goals should be reconciled in some way unless the administration wants to further embarrass themselves, and the bad news for them is that a lot of time will be needed for that to happen, and these controversial cases will keep piling on.

It also becomes very difficult for journalists to protect their sources, because a recent court decision on the infamous Jeffrey Sterling case stipulated that those reporters who have promised anonymity to their sources could only do that if they're prepared to share the prison cell with them as well. This measure will certainly cool down the desire of those who intend to make revelations, and it'll largely shut the mouths of whistle-blowers.

What the Manning case could not achieve, though, was to cause the very necessary debate about the boundaries of secrecy, and in what case the revealing of classified information is appropriate. Snowden has demonstrated that even the threat of trial could be insufficient to prevent some actions in the area of what he believes is of crucial public interest. What this case has probably done is to make people like him more careful in the future about the way they distribute that information. If that's the case, then, despite the real threats of legal prosecution, the leaks of classified information will not cease, but will only become more anonymous.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

sophia-sadek.livejournal.com

If Manning had been convicted of aiding and abetting the enemy, it would have meant that the liberal media are the enemy. It was okay for the Bush administration to out Valerie Plame Wilson as a CIA operative because of executive privilege and because her husband was a thought criminal for doubting the existence of WMD in Iraq.

I am so thankful that Manning will not get a life sentence. I hope to sit down and interview him 136 years from now.

From:

abomvubuso.livejournal.com

Lots of things could happen for 136 years. Things could change in a way that he could be viewed as a hero at some point, and pardoned and even deified. Can't know from now.

From:

sophia-sadek.livejournal.com

I know plenty of people who see his actions as heroic.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods.

Not quite a hero, not quite the traitor

Credits & Style Info

Links

Summary