Chelsea Manning

Bradley Manning: Is There Anyone More Normal?

|

Joanne McNeil (an occasional Reason contributorreports from the Bradley Manning trial for Jacobin magazine, with some interesting observations, starting with the fact that he seems to have a lot of older fans, with:

a third of the people attending the trial as spectators could remember the bombing of Pearl Harbor as clearly as 9-11. And quite a number more looked like retired boomers. Has AARP thrown its weight behind hacktivist causes? Were they cypherpunks in elaborate disguise?

I started talking with a retired woman who drove down from Pennsylvania. I asked how she felt about the prosecution's depiction of WikiLeaks as a terrorist abettor. "Well, I'm not as concerned with that," she said. "I'm here because they were torturing that kid."

McNeil notes that this trial, of great importance to citizens' and the press' relationship with government and government crimes, isn't getting the attention it deserves:

How many people even know the trial is happening? Manning was held for three years without a trial. That is plenty of time for the public to mistakenly assume there was already a court decision and sentencing. And why did they try this case at all? Manning already pled guilty to 10 charges and faces up to 20 years. The remaining charges are bizarrely exaggerated. Using flimsy circumstantial evidence, the government is trying to argue that publishing documents on the internet assists terrorists. And for that they could lock him away for life….

The prosecutors are in their early 30s — nominally "digital natives" — and should know better. "Do you know what WGet is?" they interrogate a witness, as if it is malicious spyware and not an everyday command line program. The government is capitalizing on asymmetric tech literacy and the failure of language when old laws are applied to the internet. At the peak of this absurdity: WikiLeaks cables are still formally classified, so despite being readily available to anyone with internet, closed sessions are required to discuss them.

Perhaps you heard the audio of Bradley Manning's court statement last November. That was leaked. No other recordings or visuals have come out of the trial, with the exception of courtroom sketches. Now imagine if there were a livestream. And imagine if everyone had tuned in to watch Yochai Benkler's gripping expert witness testimony on July 10th. He argued on behalf of the decentralization of media in the digital age, the blurred lines between activist and journalist, and that WikiLeaks was "providing a discrete but critical component of what in the past was always integrated in a single organization."….

Why did the prosecution ramp up charges against Manning? "Aiding the enemy" might have resulted in the death penalty. The answer came from Benkler under cross-examination. Summarizing an article he wrote, he explained in court, "it's very hard to suppress information once it's on WikiLeaks and that the core target needs to be on trust as the center of gravity. In other words, to undermine the concept that WikiLeaks is a place where a leaker can go and trust that they won't be revealed. So in order to prevent this distributed leaking, it's necessary to increase the fear, as it were, or the constraint on potential leakers."

That's justice in America: increasing the fear that anyone might help American citizens or journalists might have a chance of learning what's being done in our names, on our dimes.

Part of the public campaign against Manning is based on the notion that he, well, he just ain't right:

Manning was tortured in part because he signed a few letters from the brig as "Breanna Elizabeth." Marine Corps Master Sgt. Craig Blenis defended his cruelty in a December pre-trial hearing. Coombs asked why the marine thought Manning's gender dysphoria should factor into his "prevention of Injury" status. Blenis answered because "that's not normal, sir."

But it is normal. Manning's gender identity is as normal as his computer use. Using WGet, believing WikiLeaks to be a reputable news source in 2010, listening to Lady Gaga, identifying as a gender different from your assigned sex— this is all normal. It just might take another generation to see this. What is out of the ordinary about Pfc Bradley Manning is his extraordinary courage. 

Reason.TV was live from the Manning trial a few weeks ago:

NEXT: Government Employers Also Slash Workers' Hours To Escape Obamacare Costs

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Manning was tortured in part because he signed a few letters from the brig as “Breanna Elizabeth.”

    So we can torture John for that whole ‘Suki’ thing?

    1. I am not Suki. I would never hide my gender issues behind a screen name. This is a Libertarian site. I shouldn’t have to.

      1. Other John, from what I hear.

        1. Like there is anything wrong with that.

          1. He’s talking about himself.

      2. The Libertarian Party is funding reason now?

  2. How many people even know the trial is happening? Manning was held for three years without a trial.

    Only because his defense didn’t demand one. Most of that delay was due to him. It is very disingenuous of that author to write that sentence implying that the government just held him without trial for fun. Manning could have had a trial much quicker if he had chosen not to delay and demand one.

    I don’t care whose side your on, lying and telling half truths doesn’t help. Is it the case that this reporter is just so stupid that he doesn’t understand how trials work? (admittedly a serious possibility) or is he that dishonest?

    Why did the prosecution ramp up charges against Manning? “Aiding the enemy” might have resulted in the death penalty. The answer came from Benkler under cross-examination. Summarizing an article he wrote, he explained in court, “it’s very hard to suppress information once it’s on WikiLeaks and that the core target needs to be on trust as the center of gravity. In other words, to undermine the concept that WikiLeaks is a place where a leaker can go and trust that they won’t be revealed. So in order to prevent this distributed leaking, it’s necessary to increase the fear, as it were, or the constraint on potential leakers.”

    I am not sure what the even means and wonder what the context is. What question was he answering? Isn’t 20 years in prison a bit of an indictment of the safety of leaking to wikileaks?

    1. Well, duh, people who don’t like leakers especially don’t like something set up to help leakers.

      Describing Manning as a leaker rather understates it. He didn’t just violate company policy or an NDA, he violated his sworn oath as a soldier. And for what? I don’t recall any great crimes that he revealed, just some typical messiness of war. He did release lots of information that simply embarrassed the country and our allies, and endangered some Afghan allies, so I don’t have much sympathy for him. In comparison, Snowden seems to have been much more careful about what he leaked, and the information was more important.

      And since when is “identifying as a gender different from your assigned[WTF?] sex” “normal”? It’s extremely rare. If “normal” is redefined as “exists sometimes,” then literally everything is “normal.”

      1. “He didn’t just violate company policy or an NDA, he violated his sworn oath as a soldier.”

        (GASP!)

      2. I don’t recall any great crimes that he revealed

        Well as one example, how about the US military handing over prisoners to the Iraqi government to torture? This is against the law.

        1. Meh, just the “messiness of war”.

        2. It depends. If you hand over prisoners and say “torture them for me,” yes. If you just hand them over, probably not.

      3. The news is interesting. You should read it.

        http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-50…..03543.html

        1. Hmmm, I actually don’t see a lot of bombshells in there.

          There are a couple reports of accidental killings, but largely they are confirmations of stuff we already knew: Iraq and Afghanistan are full of corruption and their militaries/government are often as much of the problem as the solution. We already knew that.

        2. That’s an interesting list, but I don’t really see much of an excuse for releasing most of that. China building missile bases in Myanmar, maybe. It still seems like Manning had a hissy fit and released a bunch of stuff, as opposed to Snowden, who had a specific and valid point to make.

  3. identifying as a gender different from your assigned sex? this is all normal.

    Just because you say something is normal doesn’t make it normal.

    1. assigned sex

      Damn You, Mother Gaia, for assigning me this penis!

    2. Define normal.

  4. Much of the information Manning leaked compromised intelligence that was collected by human sources. Because of this, people were likely killed because of Manning’s actions. I don’t care how he identifies himself sexually, but his actions were selfish and myopic; he should be tried for treason. If it can be proven that as much as one person died because of the leaked information, Manning should be executed.

    1. There is as much evidence to support the assertion that people were killed because of Manning’s actions as there is to support the assertion that vaccines cause autism.

      You can either provide a link to news of the death of a person caused by Manning’s actions or you can stop accusing him of causing the deaths of people. That’s the decent thing to do.

  5. “…for Jacobin magazine…”

    When they named that magazine, was “Bolshevik” and “Khmer Rouge” taken? What sort of people want to associated with that reputation?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.