On Monday, Pfc. Bradley Manning finally got a day in court.
After more than three years of detention, the soldier began his military trial — expected to take about three months. Manning faces more than 20 charges related to his WikiLeaks contributions between 2009 and 2010. Altogether, Manning’s efforts culminated in the largest release of classified information in U.S. history.
To Manning’s supporters, he’s a hero. Manning’s attorney at law David Coombs characterized the 25-year-old as “young, naive, but good-intentioned.”
Manning’s critics, however, see his behavior as having endangered American lives and national security. His most grave charge is that he aided the enemy, al-Qaida — a crime punishable by the life sentence.
Before Manning was arrested, he gave reasons for his actions in an online conversation with ex-hacker, Adrian Lamo: “If you…saw incredible things, awful things…things that belonged in the public domain, and not on some server stored in a dark room in Washington, D.C. …what would you do?”
“He believed this information showed how we value human life,” Coombs said. “He was troubled by that. He believed that if the American public saw it, they too would be troubled.”
The state has not been able to point to a single person harmed by the disclosures in the three years since they were made public. Despite this, the prosecution will seek to prove that he aided the enemy by presenting evidence that Osama bin Laden asked for and received information given to WikiLeaks. According to the prosecution, WikiLeaks cables were found on Osama bin Laden’s computer. They say this means that Manning indirectly communicated with the enemy.
Whether he is a patriot or un-American, Manning’s captivity and trial address the question of how whistleblowers are treated by the government and may set a modern precedent for how they are dealt with. Many who are concerned about the freedom of the press and the safety of whistleblowers worry that those who want to leak documents to the press will be held criminally accountable for their behavior.
Manning pleaded guilty to ten of his charges, so he will be facing 20 years in prison already, but the state is still following through with trying him for the other charges.
Does the state become any safer by putting Manning away for even longer?
What is the status of the general ability to engage in civil disobedience in this country? Military trials carry with them different consequences from normal public proceedings, but what can a citizen expect from the state if he or she engages in civil disobedience?
It’s a tough call to make, but an informed public keeping its eyes on the government can do a lot to help push against oppressive forces. Whatever the future holds, informing ourselves is the critical first step to holding the government accountable.
Sometimes, that first step requires a Manning telling us what’s really going on behind the curtain.
