Pfc. Bradley Manning, a 24-year old Army intelligence analyst from Oklahoma, is to be court-martialed for allegedly electronically funneling 700,000 secret U.S. documents and combat video to WikiLeaks. These include sensitive battlefield reports from Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables. 22 charges have been filed against him, one of which is "aiding the enemy;" if convicted of this, he could spend life in prison.
In chapter 15, we learned about who can or cannot be prosecuted for publicizing classified information. During the Vietnam War, Daniel Ellsberg, a former U.S. military analyst similar to Manning, craftily gave the classified and controversial Pentagon Papers to the New York Times and the Washington Post. The result was New York Times Co. v U.S. (1971), a case in which the Supreme Court ruled that the government could not prevent publication of the Papers. However, it would have won its case against Ellsberg himself, had there not been a plot twist during the trial that involved previous illegal wiretapping by the prosecution.
Assuming that no such lucky event occurs for Manning, do you think he will be convicted of all his charges? What effect will the claims that he is a hero for exposing war crimes have on his trial?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I think two things will happen; either Pfc. Bradley Manning will be convicted of some of his charges as the prosecution will probably not be involved in illegal wiretappings, or that he will not be convicted but be discharged from the military. In any case the ruling will cause some controversy as many people believe that Manning did the right, moral thing of exposing war crimes.
One video that Manning sent to WikiLeaks was called "Collateral Murder", and it shows a 2007 Army helicopter attacking and shooting a group of men and two reporters that seemed to be carrying weapons. Only one man was carrying a weapon but that is a common sight in Baghdad. The helicopter gunner mistakes the cameras of the reporters as an RPG, and thus they engaged and open fired on the group of men.
The video then shows a family in a van stopping and helping an injured man crawling. The helicopter then asked for permission to engage and fire on the van without seeing if the people in the van were armed. They get permission and open fire on the van. Apparently there were two young children in the van as the father was on his way to go to their tutoring session.
The video also shows how a fighting vehicle from ground forces, runs over a corpse while the gunners laugh. With this video I can certainly see why people believe that Manning is a true hero for exposing this to the public through WikiLeaks. I personally believe that he should not spend any time in jail for exposing the truth, as it is important to know what are military and government does.
Here is the video for people who want to see the helicopter attack:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0&feature=player_embedded
If all Manning did was release that one video, then I agree with Alex that perhaps what Manning did was the right thing. However, as mentioned in class, Manning also released information that ended in the capture of various spies in the Middle East. While exposing pertinent information to the public is commendable, endangering other people's lives is not. Therefore, I believe Manning acted in error by merely releasing a mass of unscreened information and should be sentenced according to his charges.
It’s pretty clear to me that Manning will be convicted since certain Members of the US government are trying to save face and find a scapegoat for their misdoings. Manning and Wikileaks aim in releasing the mega upload of documents was to create transparency for the Public and their Government. Is that a crime? Absolutely not. What the documents have done is essentially expose a clear violation of the rules of engagement by a group of US soldiers. Not only that, but many believe that the exposure of certain documents lead to the revolution in Tunisia and the helped fuel Arab Spring.
I agree with Will that Manning will be convicted because certain Members of the US government want to point fingers at someone so they could drop the whole story and the easies person to do it is Manning
This brings up a tough issue. How far can government transparency go? I believe that government should be as transparent as possible, while still allowing for the complete safety of our citizens both on our shores and overseas. I do not know of any direct danger caused to American forces overseas as a result from the WikiLeaks information coming out, therefore, i see no harm done in Bradley Manning's actions.
If Bradley Manning gave up secret information about US troops positioning and caused casualties on our side, he should have to pay the full consequences.
What it comes down to is whether more injury is done to the American people from this information being leaked, or kept secret. I, for one, would like to know about the atrocities committed by forces that fight upon my behalf. However, I would never ever for one second consider passing judgement upon their actions, as their situation and hardships are absolutely unfathomable for me to consider. Bradley Manning swore to keep an oath and he broke it. Now he must deal with the consequences of his actions. Alas, maybe someday we will look back and know he did the right thing, but today, with the red sands of Iraq still fresh in our minds, it is hard to see why the Army wouldn't convict him on the charges he is accused of.
Post a Comment