WikiLeaks: Manning Faces 136 Years in Prison, a Verdict Where Everyone Loses

Bradley Manning, who provided WikiLeaks with close to 250,000 U.S. embassy cables, faces 136 years in prison — this verdict was announced at the end of his hearing. Since his arrest, the U.S. government has been highly criticized. For Maxime Pinard of Iris, the U.S. cannot do just about anything with detained whistle-blowers. Explanations follow.

We learned last Tuesday evening that Bradley Manning was not ultimately judged guilty of “collusion with the enemy.” Despite that he faces 136 years in prison, if you take into account the 22 accusations with which he is charged.

Manning: Traitor or Martyr?

This [judgment] is hardly a surprise since the main charge assumed that it was proven that Manning had acted so as to provide terrorist organizations with stolen documents. It was mostly an intimidation attempt by U.S. authorities in order to discourage future potential whistle-blowers, with the accusation of collusion with the enemy potentially leading to life in prison.

So it’s a verdict with a high risk of not satisfying anyone: Manning’s accusers, who see him as a traitor, will denounce the lack of firmness of the judicial system, whereas partisans of the old guard see him as a martyr, so to speak.

Since the announcement of the verdict, WikiLeaks has reacted by depicting Manning as the “the most important journalistic source that the world has ever seen” and by underlining his “unquestionable heroism.” From a rational point of view, it is difficult to entirely share the point of view of WikiLeaks when we see that in the details of the information Manning transmitted, only a tiny minority is of any particular interest.

The Revelations that Hallow the Role of the Whistle-Blower

For those who are for his heroism, remember simply that he was discovered — that this is because he boasted about his actions to a hacker named Adrian Lamo, who consequently informed the police. Admittedly, it was necessary for him to have courage to decide to undertake his operation, but it is also necessary to note that he has been very reckless and imprudent thereafter.

It was at the time of his illness in Iraq in 2009 that Manning, an intelligence analyst, began to collect information, in an illegal manner for some. Until his arrest in May 2010, he transmitted more than 250,000 U.S. embassy cables (published in November 2011), including reports on the wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Many of these documents merely confirmed what we already knew about these wars. The only exception was the broadcast of a video on April 5, 2010, showing a blunder of U.S. forces in Iraq fighting unarmed civilians.

This revelation demonstrates Manning’s usefulness and courage, but by drowning in the millions of documents, it has lost its strategic importance. The media is focusing on the little anecdotes of particular embassies, overshadowing a highly condemnable act nevertheless.

Manning’s Ambiguous Behavior

If he had limited himself to this scandal, he could have actually aspired to this image of a hero; but by violating the rules, by searching for whatever people may call some recognition through mass revelations, his role became very ambiguous. Even if Manning merely repeats that his objective was to provoke a public debate on U.S. foreign policy, it is clear that this is a failure because the attention is on him and his role, and much less on the errors of U.S. political and armed forces.

By detaining him in inhumane conditions for months (until his transfer in April 2011), U.S. authorities made a mistake, allowing Manning’s supporters to denounce this excess of American power. Moreover, it tends to change the course of the whistle-blower situation, assuring that the death penalty will no longer be required against new whistle-blowers (including Snowden), but it does not, however, demonstrate an excess in leniency because, at the end of the day, Manning still committed a crime.

Manning, Snowden Pawns for the U.S.

There is no “good” way out for the U.S. in this affair; in each case, there will be negative consequences. Even if there were a dissolution of the trial, of the support that is strongly manifesting itself in the media, we can bet that we will still hear a lot of talk about the former analyst months from now. An appropriate punishment, and not an exemplary one like some hope, should be applied within the framework of the law.

The Snowden affair, which can be seen as a mirror of the Manning affair, demonstrates in any case that there is a place for whistle-blowers, that their actions involve the renouncement of their own lives to show everyone a fact they judge crucial to the betterment of institutions. Even if Snowden was well-aware of the difficulties before his departure for Hong Kong, the fact remains that he is safe today. By ensuring beforehand, and as far as possible, his own security, he gave himself the means to reach the end of his mission.

Even if for several reasons, the U.S. is highly open to criticism concerning the Manning affair, we should not believe that the other powers would be more willing to protect and welcome whistle-blowers of their own nationalities.

When we see the European reactions to Snowden’s asylum requests, even though he rendered them an immense service by revealing the American eavesdropping program, it is reasonable to say that at the end of the day, whistle-blowers are only pawns in a vast chessboard, used by the powers for a time before being abandoned when considered too troublesome.

Still, whistle-blowers represent a hope because they demonstrate that information, even if hidden and protected, can still potentially be revealed, something which could be either beneficial or detrimental to public debate.