According to the New York Magazine, Manning’s secrets included his sexuality. Not only was he gay, but he was also looking into making the transition from being a man to becoming a woman. Until recently I hadn’t been following the story as closely as others have, so I hadn’t really known. Yet I actually sort of suspected. From the moment I saw his picture and read just some of his story, I wondered. I don’t really have a “gaydar” (a friend of mine from high school turned out to be gay – I had no idea). Rather, he reminded me of an acquaintance. A formerly male one. And every time I saw Manning’s picture, I thought of Melvin/Millie. In part because of a slight physical resemblance, in part because he did the exact sort of thing I could imagine Melvin/Millie doing, and in part because of the similarity of being someone detested by the culture they found themselves in (Millie and the LDS Church, Manning and the military).
It’s really hard to imagine the mental strain of his secrets didn’t play a pretty pivotal role in the mental unwinding from which the alleged treason resulted. I don’t really know the extent to which this should be relevant at trial. My inclination is still “throw the book at him.” But the more I read about him, the more fascinating a figure he becomes.
You’re probably right about his sexuality/gender playing a role in making him feel like an aggrieved outsider played a significant role in motivating him to do whatever it was he did. One cannot help but wonder that if there had been no Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell rule whether that would have mitigated the circumstances somewhat. Not completely, because you can’t legislate homophobia away. But at least the Army would have officially had no quarrel with him wanting to be with men and eventually wanting to become a woman. Perhaps he would have seen the institution as less in need of a shock to reform it.
I don’t know what, if any difference, the repeal of DADT would have made. You still would have been left with a culture with hostility to his lifestyle. But I do think it likely to the social isolation contributed to his unwinding. To what it extent it was that, and to what extent it was disgust at the sort of intel he was seeing, it’s hard to tell. But an earlier DADT certainly wouldn’t have hurt.
Look. I don’t want to argue that what he (allegedly) did wasn’t illegal. I think it clearly was. But moving away from issues of positive law for a second, does it bring you pause, saying, “throw the book at him,” when you acknowledge the enormous number of relevant and substantive news stories that have emanated over the past two years from Wikileaks? It’s been a lot; without Manning’s (alleged) treason, we’d know much less about the world today than we do. And, generally, I’d imagine that most denizens of these blog-parts would find transparency to, more often than not, be an inherent good.
Ultimately… no. I can understand why others feel differently, but our system has to be able to entrust people with state secrets. It cannot be left to the conscience of the person with the loosest sense of what the public should know. I am very sympathetic arguments that our government classifies way too much information for way too long. But the government cannot react lightly to unilateral decisions to declassify material. Julian Assange owes our government and our country nothing. Bradley Manning is a different matter. The buck stops with him. Whatever my sympathies for him, we have to be able to trust those who handle classified material to keep their mouths shut.
To clarify, there actually are things about this case that give me pause. But after the pause, my position is not ultimately changed. Or has not yet been, at any rate.
I respect this position. The distinction between Assange and Manning is valuable; and though Ellsberg himself may feel differently, I don’t think Manning was acting out of a conviction that was so profound and just as to override his various obligations and oaths as a man in uniform and American citizen.
Manning has not yet been convicted and he’s entitled to a presumption of innocence. A presumption which, for rhetorical purposes, I am going to turn on its head because the information available about him now sure makes him look guilty. (And he’s entitled to humane treatment while in custody awaiting trial, because he’s an American citizen, but that’s a different story.)
Protesting that a crime accomplishes a net benefit to society domesticates the criminal nature of the act. Manning broke the law. Maybe he had a higher moral purpose in mind (which I would contend is misguided) but breaking the law is, tautologically, a violation of the law and the law will be enforced. In this case, breaking the law placed real human beings’ lives at risk and it impaired the ability of the U.S. government to accomplish good things in the world through diplomacy.
And while some might argue that openness of information is a good thing, I will not. Will mentioned state secrets. I would also point to intellectual property. These kinds of laws may need to be reformed, but they do not need to be abolished.
Fundamentally I’m in agreement with you but let me play some advocate, if I may.
Do we have any evidence — besides claims from the Administration and the Pentagon — that Manning’s alleged actions put lives at risk? (Your other point, on diplomacy, seems to me to be unimpeachable.)
No, and we shouldn’t get any, either. Under the circumstances, it’s easy to see how such a claim is at least reasonable rather than hysterical.
My initial draft had a paragraph on his mistreatment. It looks like the government has moved to make that right. But it’s worth mentioning anyway: the way he was treated was wrong. Not because of any lack of severity on what he’s accused of, but because he’s an American citizen (and more to the point, one who has not yet been found guilty of anything).
I’d add that it is entirely noncontradictory to think BOTH that on balance Bradley Manning did a great service for his country with his diclosure (which I am not saying I do or don’t think… I’m still not sure I understand how much we really learned and how valuable it was, what damage may have been caused… And in any case I think it is inarguable that the way he carried our his act was extraordinarily reckless, particularly for someone who’s taken a legally-enforceable oath to protect our nation’s information security by following established procedures, however misguided those procedures may be)…
…AND to think at the same time that he should have the book thrown at him for illegally taking actions that he took a voluntary and (as I mentioned) legally-enforceable oath not to take. Those are not at all contradictory positions to hold at one and the same time about one and the same act.
Indeed, I think that, whatever one thinks about the value of transparency (and I think people around here probably have more complicated thoughts on that than one might imagine: I for one do, though I do think that it has at least some inherent value — indeed perhaps more inherent than instrumental value in point of fact), or of the specific action taken by Manning, I think anyone who supports the rule of law is bound to support at least *some portion* of the book being thrown at him, if indeed he broke the law in the way it appears he may have. I’m fine if we think that the value of the act should mitigate how much of the book be chucked his way, because that is how the legal system works universally. But I have a problem if we think a subjective assessment of the social value of Manning’s act ought to rule out any serious legal consequences for Manning if indeed he broke the law in a serious way (which I know he did not say, but I wanted to make the point nonetheless).
…which I know Elias did not say is his position, I meant to say at the end there.
Will Truman July 7, 2011 at 6:43 am
” Ultimately… no. I can understand why others feel differently, but our system has to be able to entrust people with state secrets. It cannot be left to the conscience of the person with the loosest sense of what the public should know.”
So far, it’s left to the political convenience of those with power. And to the political convenience of those with power as to who gets prosecuted – Holder basically announced recently that the policy of the US is the Abu Ghraib policy – prosecutions are for schmucks only.
I’m French ( it’s more difficult for me to express the bottom of my thought ) , so it’s maybe I don’t feel concerned by the supposed Bradley Manning’s treason. But I think seriously that his sexuality (who not interest nobody because it’s his private life and that everyone owe respect it ) not influenced his decisionto denounce war crimes.If he really has to communicate this secret informations, it’s maybe who he actedwith consciousness and dignity. The responsible soldiers owe to be judge because the poor irakians citizens don’t have to suffer humors of the soldiers. For my part, luckily that he exists soldiers as Bradley MANNING with a good mood
The U.S. government is guilty of 6 things. So far, the U.S. Army…
A. … ignored Manning’s disqualifying shortcomings during basic training;
B. … promoted him multiple times, finally to Private First Class (E-4);
C. … deployed him to a far-flung, desolate outpost in a war zone;
D. … failed to enforce standard technical security measures;
E. … allowed peers and superiors to repeatedly torment and beat him; and
F. … ignored his reports of war crimes.
Manning’s guilt has yet to be proven. The world still doesn’t know…
1. … whether Manning will plead guilty or innocent;
2. … what exactly he did (if anything);
3. … what the damages are (if any);
4. … who was hurt (if anyone);
5. … what his defense is;
6. … why U.S. Marine Corps prison officials refused to let him have confidential visits with either U.S. Congressional Representative Dennis Kucinich (Democrat, Ohio) or United Nations Human Rights Council Special Rapporteur For Torture Juan Mendez; and
7. … how nearly one year of inhumane pre-trial detainment affect this case.
Everyone — on all sides — should stop declaring various levels of guilt, innocence, heroism, and treason until after the 7 facts above are well known and fully understood.
That’s a long way off yet. The crimes allegedly occurred in 2010. Manning will spend 1-2 years in prison prior to the end of his case. The outcome will be known in 2012.