The Lessons of the Trial of Bradley Manning
Absolved Tuesday by the military justice of grave accusations of “aiding the enemy,” the soldier Bradley Manning still risked a heavy prison sentence for other charges against him: computer fraud, theft and multiple violations of the anti-espionage law. That will earn him 136 years of imprisonment, although it is more formally punishable by life in prison. After hearing for the last time the arguments of the defense and of the military prosecutors, Judge Denise Lind may deal a heavy hand by condemning the former intelligence analyst to several decades behind bars. Sole concession: She will withdraw from the final sentence the 1,162 days of detention already inflicted on Manning, of which 12 months were in very degrading conditions — naked and in isolation to prevent suicide.
If the first verdict delivered on Tuesday seems lenient for the whistle-blower, convicted of having illegally transferred 740,000 confidential documents to the site WikiLeaks in 2010, the second one unveils the true intentions of the Obama administration: determined to wage a ruthless war against agitators tempted to follow this road. The warning is solemn: Whoever dares to organize leaks of classified information will have the sword of justice befall them.
However, Washington was not able to prevent the emergence of a public controversy: Its displayed firmness seems to both target “lost soldiers” like Manning and the journalists eager to obtain the same information from their sources at the Pentagon, the State Department or intelligence agencies. If the first case seems like an apparent act of treason, the second — far thornier — touches on the freedom of expression. It is the sacred principle inscribed in the First Amendment of the Constitution of 1787 and on the famous “fourth power” that is the media, especially since the Watergate scandal.
The “Pentagon Papers”
In The New Republic, Harvard law professor Yochai Benkler mentions an incident that occurred during the trial. When asked whether he would invoke the argument that Manning “aided the enemy” if he had contacted The New York Times instead of WikiLeaks, he insisted that a military prosecutor would have answered in the affirmative. The reply reveals how much journalism is in danger when it comes to national security. In a commentary for The Christian Science Monitor, Daniel Ellsberg stated, “the idea that you can face life in prison or death simply from informing … a potential enemy in the process of informing fellow citizens for their benefit is potentially a lethal blow to the First Amendment … ” An adviser during the Vietnam War to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and an opponent of military gear, Ellsberg was resolute in transmitting the “Pentagon Papers” — thousands of pages of analysis with origins and implications of conflict — to The New York Times in 1969, when the Kennedy and Johnson administrations knowingly lied to the public and to Congress about military engagement in Vietnam.* Requested in 1971, the Supreme Court invoked the First Amendment to authorize the publication of these documents. In 1973, Ellsberg was acquitted of all charges against him.
The parallels between the cases of Ellsberg and Manning are troubling. Obama’s America, no less than Nixon’s, is unwilling to tolerate such scandals, even at the expense of any public debate about wiretapping, war crimes or drone strikes. From his Russian exile, Edward Snowden, the other whistle-blower and NSA deserter, stands warned.
*Editor’s note: The translation from the original is correct, but it may be that the author intended to convey that Ellsberg was opposed to the military apparatus, rather than physical military gear, since he was indeed a famous dissenter.
If the first verdict delivered on Tuesday seems lenient for the whistle-blower, convicted of having illegally transferred 740,000 confidential documents to the site WikiLeaks in 2010, the second one unveils the true intentions of the Obama administration: determined to wage a ruthless war against agitators tempted to follow this road. The warning is solemn: Whoever dares to organize leaks of classified information will have the sword of justice befall them.
However, Washington was not able to prevent the emergence of a public controversy: Its displayed firmness seems to both target “lost soldiers” like Manning and the journalists eager to obtain the same information from their sources at the Pentagon, the State Department or intelligence agencies. If the first case seems like an apparent act of treason, the second — far thornier — touches on the freedom of expression. It is the sacred principle inscribed in the First Amendment of the Constitution of 1787 and on the famous “fourth power” that is the media, especially since the Watergate scandal.
The “Pentagon Papers”
In The New Republic, Harvard law professor Yochai Benkler mentions an incident that occurred during the trial. When asked whether he would invoke the argument that Manning “aided the enemy” if he had contacted The New York Times instead of WikiLeaks, he insisted that a military prosecutor would have answered in the affirmative. The reply reveals how much journalism is in danger when it comes to national security. In a commentary for The Christian Science Monitor, Daniel Ellsberg stated, “the idea that you can face life in prison or death simply from informing … a potential enemy in the process of informing fellow citizens for their benefit is potentially a lethal blow to the First Amendment … ” An adviser during the Vietnam War to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and an opponent of military gear, Ellsberg was resolute in transmitting the “Pentagon Papers” — thousands of pages of analysis with origins and implications of conflict — to The New York Times in 1969, when the Kennedy and Johnson administrations knowingly lied to the public and to Congress about military engagement in Vietnam.* Requested in 1971, the Supreme Court invoked the First Amendment to authorize the publication of these documents. In 1973, Ellsberg was acquitted of all charges against him.
The parallels between the cases of Ellsberg and Manning are troubling. Obama’s America, no less than Nixon’s, is unwilling to tolerate such scandals, even at the expense of any public debate about wiretapping, war crimes or drone strikes. From his Russian exile, Edward Snowden, the other whistle-blower and NSA deserter, stands warned.
*Editor’s note: The translation from the original is correct, but it may be that the author intended to convey that Ellsberg was opposed to the military apparatus, rather than physical military gear, since he was indeed a famous dissenter.