Heroic Whistle-blower, Not a Traitor-Citing the privilege of its news sources, WikiLeaks has understandably not formally revealed that it was Manning

Heroic Whistle-blower, Not a Traitor



January 07, 2012

Bradley Manning’s trial exposes the supreme irony in the US claims of its conduct of “just wars”.

When United States (US) army intelligence analyst and soldier Bradley Manning first copied information from his employer’s intelligence database, supposedly sometime in November 2009, he thought he was doing a major service to society. And Manning was right. The US had waged a war in two countries and spread its clandestine operations across west Asia as part of its “war on terror”, both of which have featured numerous war crimes and human rights violations. It was when WikiLeaks put out the official material that Manning had downloaded that the scale of the crimes became fully known. In April 2010 WikiLeaks in its release, “Collateral Murder”, had sensationally revealed information about US army helicopters bombing civilians in Iraq. Thereafter, the website published field reports on the conduct of the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions in its “Iraq war logs” and “Afghan war diary”, respectively. It later put out, in collaboration with various newspapers across the world, a large tranche of diplomatic cables from American embassies that detailed how the superpower conducted its business with the rest of the world.

Citing the privilege of its news sources, WikiLeaks has understandably not formally revealed that it was Manning who supplied these materials to them. Manning clearly saw himself acting as a whistle-blower. Emotionally insecure and alienated by the wars waged by his nation, the 24-year-old thought it best to play that risky role while working amidst colleagues who had few qualms about acting inhumanely. All this came to light later through purported transcripts of Manning’s internet conversations with a fellow “hacktivist” Adrian Lamo.

Manning has now been put on a military trial with the prosecution arguing for a full court martial and life imprisonment. As many as 30 charges have been framed against him in the trial that commenced on 16 December, with the charges even carrying the death penalty.

After his incarceration, Manning has been subjected to severe prison conditions. For close to 10 of his 18 months of imprisonment, he was confined to solitary treatment in a maximum security prison, and was forced to bear various indignities that can only be described as torture. US President Barack Obama has justified this treatment of Manning and rejected comparisons with the other famous whistle-blower, Daniel Ellsberg, who, while working at the RAND Corporation, released the Pentagon Papers in 1967 that eventually brought an end to the US invasion of Vietnam. Ellsberg himself has been an ardent supporter of Manning and has petitioned hard for his freedom. The Pentagon Papers that detailed the lies perpetuated by successive US administrations about the conduct of the Vietnam war contained information which was classified and marked as “top secret”. The diplomatic cables and videos released by Manning were scarcely “secret” like the Pentagon Papers. Most were communications from embassy officials that at best brought embarrassment to the US state department for their candour in describing political events and personalities in various nations. While the charges of espionage against Ellsberg were dropped in 1973, the political discourse in the US following the release of WikiLeaks documents has likened Manning’s act to cyber-terrorism. Republican politicians have even called for the assassination of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and for a punitive example to be made out of Manning.

During the trial, military prosecutors have accused Manning of aiding Al Qaida by disclosing what the US army has done as part of its military operations in west Asia and elsewhere. Ironically, others credit the launch of the democracy movements in Tunisia and other countries in west Asia to the WikiLeaks release of information on the conduct of local dictatorships. President Obama had in his 2008 campaign promised a “most transparent administration” with the online release of as much public information on his presidency as possible. Yet, Bradley Manning, who only acted out of an instinctive commitment to peace and transparency, has been put in the dock for his whistle-blowing efforts.

Unlike during the Vietnam war, public criticism of US government actions in Afghanistan and Iraq has been relatively muted. While there is a war weariness and general disquiet about US ­operations, this has not translated into active protest and a ­demand for an immediate shift in US foreign policy. The same newspapers that published diplomatic accounts and war details supplied to them by WikiLeaks have also been muted in their ­response to the US government’s treatment of Manning and the ­systematic attacks against WikiLeaks. In the current mood in the US it does not seem that Manning will be given justice and ­accorded his true status of a heroic whistle-blower.