Saving Private Manning

A democratic society has its own prisoners of conscience.

According to the military investigators, a 23-year-old soldier in the U.S. Army, Bradley Manning, was “aiding the enemy.” This and 21 other offenses have been recently added to the charges filed against Manning in July for improperly handling classified information and endangering national security.

The punishment for “aiding the enemy” is severe: the death penalty or life imprisonment. However, the prosecutors have announced that they would “merely” seek a life sentence, with the charitable mindset of letting Manning serve the sentence however long he can.

Manning had access to the Pentagon server, which, in addition to military reports, also had correspondence between the State Department and foreign establishments. He downloaded data for the past few years, and passed it to the web site WikiLeaks.

The website was created by an Australian, Julian Assange, and a group of his supporters, specifically to show the public what the government was hiding from its nation. The information provided by Manning was partially posted on WikiLeaks, or passed on to, and published by, leading Western press.

The investigators justify the charge of “aiding the enemy” by asserting that the information disclosed by Manning endangered the lives of people who helped the U.S. So far, this has not happened, and it would be extremely difficult for the prosecutors to prove this accusation.

However, they have plenty of reasons at their disposal to send Manning to jail. And not only him — the prosecutors have stated that other persons would be criminally charged, without providing any specific names yet. It is obvious that this is aimed at the founder of WikiLeaks, Assange, and possibly the government officials responsible for keeping official records.

In fact, Manning and Assange committed an act of glasnost — public transparency. Two hundred and fifty thousand documents from the State Department and diplomatic missions, and tens of thousands of military reports from Iraq and Afghanistan, were made available.

In the fight against this “grassroots glasnost,” officials are relying on the language of the law. But I ask, how well founded are their accusations? Where are those people who Manning allegedly handed over to the enemy? Is this simply out of fear that other soldiers will follow Manning’s example?

In general, Americans don’t support Manning’s actions. And even the U.S. media, which actively use information provided by WikiLeaks, are trying to keep their distance and avoid any self-assessment of WikiLeaks, Manning and Assange.

This contrasts with their attitude toward the publication of the Pentagon Papers at the end of the Vietnam War. The contradiction can be explained in only one way: the Pentagon Papers of that era helped to end a tiresome war, while the current publication only disgraced the American military and diplomacy.

Nevertheless, the U.S. has a lot of people expressing support for Manning and Assange. One such group, founded in Oakland, has a characteristic name: Courage to Resist. Even more people are sympathetic to Manning and Assange in other countries.

They consider Manning and Assange to be prisoners of conscience. It’s no secret that people who follow their hearts, despite the law, exist sometimes even under the most democratic constitutions.