Three years after his arrest in Iraq, last Monday proceedings began against Bradley Manning, who was accused in a U.S. military court of 22 charges, including “aiding the enemy,” after leaking almost 700,000 classified documents — the biggest leak of its kind in American history — to WikiLeaks. If he is found guilty, he could be given a life sentence without parole, to be served in a military prison. The best-case scenario is that he will spend 20 years behind bars because, according to one of his lawyers, he will plead guilty to 10 of the 22 charges leveled against him. Despite this, the U.S. court is insisting on trying him on charges of espionage and aiding the enemy. All the signs show that the court is looking for a harsh, precedent-setting punishment. But it could well backfire, because there are many people both at home and abroad who stand behind the young soldier for daring to reveal the shameful actions of his country. His revelations, they argue, were the first step toward creating healthy debate about the horrors of warfare and how to prevent their recurrence.
In 2009, when he began working for the U.S. intelligence services in Iraq as a data analyst at the age of 22, Manning had access to networks containing protected information. He was thus able to access tens of thousands of confidential documents stored on different databases. Some commentators suggest that his homosexuality isolated him from his peers and led him to withdraw into the world of the Internet and declassified documents.
Motives aside, it is true that he came across a number of examples of abuse and decided to make them public with the support of Julian Assange. He confessed to his friend Adrian Lamo that he had seen “almost criminal political backdealings [...] incredible things, awful things ... things that belong in the public domain and not on some server stored in a dark room in Washington D.C.” Lamo, frightened by the enormity of the issues, reported Manning to the authorities.
Bradley was detained and transferred to a military cell in Virginia in July 2010, where he was treated appallingly. He was “held for 23 hours a day in a sparsely furnished solitary cell and deprived of a pillow, sheets and personal possessions. He was allowed only one hour a day to walk and one hour of television a day. He was forced to stand nude for inspection when he was woken at five in the morning,” according to Amnesty International.*
While there can be no doubt that Manning committed a number of offenses and acted against U.S. interests, he nonetheless not only has the right to a fair trial, but also to be treated with dignity. It is thus logical that the abuse he has suffered, combined with the law’s lack of transparency and overzealousness, may end up damaging the credibility of U.S. justice and the Obama administration instead of helping their cause.
*Editor’s Note: While accurately translated, only the first sentence of this quote could be verified as a statement from Amnesty International.
Tres años después de su detención en Irak, el lunes anterior empezó el consejo de guerra contra el soldado Bradley Manning, acusado por la justicia militar estadounidense de 22 cargos, entre ellos el de “colusión con el enemigo”, tras protagonizar la mayor filtración de documentos clasificados (cerca de 700.000) jamás sufrida por EEUU, que remitió a la organización WikiLeaks.
De ser hallado culpable, podría ser condenado a cadena perpetua en una prisión militar sin posibilidad de libertad condicional. En el mejor de los casos, pasará tras las rejas unos 20 años, pues, según dijo uno de sus abogados, Manning se declarará culpable de diez de los 22 cargos que se le imputan. Pese a ello, la justicia estadounidense insiste en procesarlo por espionaje y por ayudar al enemigo. Todo sugiere que el juicio persigue un escarmiento ejemplar y desproporcionado. No obstante, el tiro podría salirse por la culata, pues no son pocos, dentro y fuera de EEUU, los que defienden la actuación de ese joven soldado que se atrevió a ventilar actos vergonzosos, cuya difusión era el primer paso para promover un debate sobre los horrores de la guerra y así evitar que se repitan.
Destinado en 2009 a un servicio de inteligencia en Irak a los 22 años, encargado de analizar las informaciones, Manning tenía acceso a redes informáticas protegidas. Gracias a ello pudo acceder a decenas de miles de documentos confidenciales almacenados en distintas bases de datos. Algunos analistas sugieren que su homosexualidad lo aisló del resto de sus compañeros, y lo llevó a ensimismarse en internet y en los documentos desclasificados.
Independientemente de los motivos, lo cierto es que se encontró con una serie de abusos y decidió hacerlos públicos con el apoyo de Julián Assange. “He visto arreglos políticos casi criminales (...). Cosas increíbles, horribles, que deben pertenecer al dominio público y no quedarse en un servidor en una oscura habitación de Washington”, le confesó a su amigo Adrian Lamo, quien se asustó ante la enormidad del asunto y lo denunció.
Bradley fue detenido y trasladado en julio de 2010 a una celda militar en Virginia, donde recibió un trato deplorable. “23 horas de aislamiento sobre 24, con un paseo de una hora, otra hora de televisión, sin almohada, sin sábanas y sin ningún efecto personal. Estaba obligado a presentarse desnudo al ser llamado a las 5 de la mañana”, según denunció Amnistía Internacional.
Ahora bien, no cabe duda de que Manning cometió varios delitos y afectó los intereses de EEUU. No obstante, tiene derecho no sólo a un juicio justo y con plenas garantías, sino también a ser tratado con dignidad. De allí que los abusos cometidos en su contra, el hermetismo y la sobreactuación judicial lejos de contribuir podrían dañar la credibilidad de la justicia y de la administración estadounidenses.
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link
.
[T]he president failed to disclose that subsidies granted by his government — in connivance with the Republican Party — artificially maintain the viability of fossil fuels.
[The Democrats] need to find a campaign issue which will resonate beyond their liberal-metropolitan heartlands before the midterm elections in the fall of 2026.
[T]he president failed to disclose that subsidies granted by his government — in connivance with the Republican Party — artificially maintain the viability of fossil fuels.
[The Democrats] need to find a campaign issue which will resonate beyond their liberal-metropolitan heartlands before the midterm elections in the fall of 2026.
The paternalism with which the United States has been taking on the economy (with trade as a strategy) and the territory of South and Central America dates back a long time.
Biden's triumph has given us a guiding narrative: the idea that, in the worst circumstances, believing, organizing and mobilizing can produce a kind of miracle.