A Symbolic Sentence for Appearance's Sake

The verdict was political and unjust, and the acquittal on the charge of “aiding the enemy” was no more than a cheap concession designed to preserve the illusion of democracy.

The verdict given to WikiLeaks informant Bradley Manning looks suspiciously like it fulfilled the political demands of the Obama administration. Manning’s acquittal on the charge of aiding the enemy doesn’t stand as a victory for the defense, but it speaks volumes about what the public has meanwhile become accustomed to.

The accusation was absurd right from the start. Thus, it looks almost as if the judge decided not to toss that charge out right at the outset for the express purpose of absolving Manning of it in the final verdict: It would look better that way.

The Obama administration has garnered a good deal of bad press with its overzealous pursuit of whistle-blowers. The Bradley Manning case assured that National Security Agency whistle-blower Edward Snowden, who never disputed the charges against him, would have public sympathy because Manning had spent a good deal of time in solitary confinement before his trial ever started. Not a good spot for the U.S. to be in.

To that end, the Manning trial had to accomplish two goals: The verdict had to be drastic enough to deter future whistle-blowers and also had to demonstrate that the military court was above reproach. Acquittal on the most serious charge accompanied by a guilty verdict on all other charges accomplished precisely that.

To assume that was purely coincidental would be naïve. Filmmaker Michael Moore reminds us in The Huffington Post that all soldiers convicted of war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan have served less prison time in total than Bradley Manning faces by himself. Military justice also functioned in those cases as well. Symbolic sentences for public consumption and nothing to worry the troops. These are political sentences and they are unjust.