Capitol Hill Blue Forums Misc. Topics The Media Bradley Manning: A Window Into The American Soul

Gentlemen, you are being quite selective in your perceptions. If Private Manning had focused on only those events or evidence which were about war crimes or law violations he might have been considered a "whistleblower." He did not do that. He leaked hundreds of thousands of pages of classified and sensitive information without scrubbing it, filtering it, or understanding any of it. He was completely indiscriminate, and that may have been the worst part of his crime. Included in the information were battlefield intelligence notes which identified people cooperating with our forces, methods of operation, locations, etc. He was aware through his training and responsibilities that what is referred to as OPSEC - Operational Security - is important because even mundane information can be used by enemies of the United States to harm national security and even individuals. If you are an enemy of the United States with knowledge of where operations are occurring, how they are conducted, where our vulnerabilities are, and who is cooperating in providing information to us, actions can be taken, methods can be developed, and targets can be identified.

I recognize that this is not an argument I can "win" - as, this has not been a rational discussion, but ideological and devoid of factual elements - my point is that in your zeal to attack what you perceive to be "bad things," you (collectively) are willing to ignore the ramifications of the actions that are taken and laud the clear criminality of someone of whom you know almost nothing, about something which you clearly know little. My point about the Rosenbergs was the same thing - people defended them (and attacked them) for purely ideological reasons without considering the implications of their known acts.

Let me be really specific here: If someone fires a loaded firearm into a crowded room and kills someone, that is considered first degree murder, under what is known as "depraved indifference." If someone fires that same weapon into the room and miraculously fails to hit any one, he has still committed a crime, though a lesser one. It doesn't matter if he believes that someone in that room may have committed a crime, there are plenty of innocent victims who have been attacked indiscriminately. In many ways you are justifying the same behavior by Private Manning that you are condemning in others (generally, anyone who wears a uniform or represents the United States). The broad-based assertions of "war crimes" and his "laudable intentions" are just a smoke screen for a morally corrupt argument - the ends justify the means, and collateral effects are excusable if the cause is "just - indifference to reality because of an ideological standpoint.

That it is difficult to identify particular items to particular events is not a measure of the harm, but only a statement of the difficulty of proof. We don't know which victim's deaths can be attributed to Manning's actions because the actual killings are being perpetrated by third parties, and information that he provided was only partially responsible as the intelligence was amalgamated with other information to complete the plan. So, for example, if someone commits a series of robberies and deposits the ill-gotten gains into the same personal bank account where he deposits his paycheck, we can never identify which specific dollars came from his wages and which were the wages of sin - they are fungible and thoroughly mixed. Such fine distinctions are not required to prove criminal activity and seize the bank account. So too, here, Manning provided information to enemies with clear intent to harm Americans, and in particular the Soldiers of the United States who were his fellows in arms. That these enemies had access to other information, and were committing other crimes against other people (more Iraqis and Afghanis have been killed by fellow countrymen than Americans) is immaterial to the particular sources of their information.

You accuse me of jingoism because labeling is easier than arguing from facts - because the facts do not support your assertions. Let's get back to them, shall we? Bradley Manning took an oath - one I have taken myself - which states:
He violated that oath. His actions were violations of law, of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and of the Constitution. That he (and you) justify them as supporting a "greater good" does not obviate that. He knew what he was doing was illegal, could harm others, and did it anyway. Whether he hit anyone in the room is immaterial to the crime. But, there is also evidence that he did hit people in the room. NYT So, by all means, let us pretend that the information was not received or used by enemies of the United States and quibble about how many angels inhabit Bradley Manning's body.

The charges against Manning are specific, and he has offered a guilty plea to some of them. The most serious charge, aiding the enemy, is generalized, but the elements are there - Article 104, UCMJ

Finally, we do know that operatives and cooperating Afghanis have been targeted and killed. We know that the perpetrators had access to sources of information - including Manning's leaked documents - that identified these individuals. We know that bombers in Afghanistan (and Iraq) adjust their methodology as they learn our methods of defense against them. We know that information included in Manning's leaked documents discussed the efficacy of, and methods of, defense and other operational specifics. We know that they have access to and use the internet to obtain this information and that Manning was aware of this methodology. We may never know - nor do we need to know - what specific pieces of information Manning supplied that aided which particular attacks. We only need to know that he intended to provide that information and that it was received by the enemy. We also know that "al Quaeda" and affiliated terrorist organizations are avowed enemies of the United States. All of the elements are there.