By Carlos Diaz
Private Bradley Manning has been held in a military prison in Virginia for more than 1,000 days. His crime was releasing classified documents to Julian Assange’s organization, Wikileaks. He had a hearing last week, which gives us an insight into how the case might be decided. The actual trial has been postponed until June of this year. Manning’s case raises many important questions about our government’s respect for freedom of the press and protection of whistle-blowers.
There was an article published in The New Republic[i] past Friday by Harvard Law Professor Yochai Benkler which warns about the dangerous conclusions which might emanate from the Manning case. Professor Benkler begins by recalling a scene from the hearing Thursday in which the Judge asked the prosecutor “Would you have pressed the same charges if Manning had given the documents not to Wikileaks but directly to the New York Times?” to which the prosecutor answered “Yes Ma’am”. This raises the issue of the role and protection of whistle-blowers in an open society like the one Americans claim to live in. This answer settles two questions, one that Wikileaks is a news organization and secondly that Manning does not deserve any protection as a whistleblower.
The most serious charge Manning is facing is that of “aiding the enemy” if convicted of this charge he could face the death penalty, something which the prosecution is not seeking but which the judge could opt for. This begs the question of: Who is the enemy? Manning provided the information to Julian Assange who until then was not an enemy of the United States. Does this mean that if any government employee civilian or military blows the whistle on what he/she considers to be government misconduct, they should be charged with “aiding the enemy? Some might claim that Bradley Manning’s case is exceptional because he was an active member of the armed forces and is therefore brought to trial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The weak spot of this argument is that Section 104 of this act which deals with “aiding the enemy” applies to “any person”.
This administration in particular seems to have an obsession with punishing whistle-blowers. A recent New York Times article[ii] details how the Obama administration has used the Espionage Act to charge government officials who have spoken out about incidents, considered minor by some, but which contain information which could potentially embarrass the administration. In fact the Obama Justice Department has charged more people for leaking information than all previous administrations combined.
In making a decision regarding Bradley Manning’s actions the judge should consider what kind of precedent her decision will create. Manning’s information exposed things like the government’s understating of civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan and abuses made to the government by civilian contractors. Will this be considered “aiding the enemy”, even though it was given to an amateur news organization which in turn gave it to more professional organizations?
The mere fact that an “enemy” has access to news sources should not allow the government to restrict what information can or cannot be published or to punish those who make the information available. I would agree with the government’s actions if it could be proven that information provided by Manning and other whistle-blowers did in fact produce any significant physical damage or helped the enemy in any material way.
Maybe it is best to quote Orwell in this case “Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear”.
Eclectic Affinities 