Bradley Manning Trial Discussion: The Verdict Approaches
As the court martial of Bradley Manning nears a verdict, public opinion remains sharply divided over the consequences of his actions. The military's restraints on media coverage may have reduced overall interest in the trial, but that hasn't stopped dedicated citizens and journalists from subjecting every syllable of the proceedings to a steady flow of passionate, often partisan, scrutiny.
As well they should. The case centers on some of the most troubling issues of contemporary politics: excessive government secrecy, war crimes, the Arab Spring, encryption technology, and the use of solitary confinement as torture. Manning's fate may set the precedent for how the United States regards other leakers, like Edward Snowden, as either whistleblowers or traitors.
To sort out these complex questions, ReasonTV invited three experts to discuss the trial. Eli Lake, the national security correspondent for Newsweek and The Daily Beast, is at once grateful to see cracks in wall of state secrecy, while also acknowledging that Manning's actions have caused significant harm to American interests. Citizen journalist Alexa O'Brien defends Manning against the most serious charges of espionage and aiding the enemy, arguing that a close reading of the court records shows otherwise. Courthouse News reporter Adam Klasfeld questions the government's decision to prosecute Manning as a spy, instead of a conscientious objector.
The three journalists were a combustible mix of personalities. Tempers flared, and clashes of informed opinion occasionally descended into personal invective. Lake and O'Brien locked horns over the issue of what, if any, harm was caused by Manning's disclosures. There were fierce disagreements about the most basic facts about the case. Yet throughout the quarreling, the conversation remained substantive, and it provides insight as to why this trial is among the most important in recent times.
Runs about 35 minutes.
Produced by Todd Krainin. Camera by Josh Swain and Krainin.
Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to ReasonTV's YouTube Channel to receive notification when new material goes live.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
If this were a civilian trial, and I were on the jury?
I'd be real tempted to exercise my nullification right as a juror on this one since, you know, the illegal thing to do and the right thing to do are sometimes the same thing.
Eli Lake be gettin' into it!
Eli, it doesn't matter what you read, if it was not entered into evidence during the trial IT IS NOT EVIDENCE!
Snowden is a hero. Manning, since he is in uniform, committed treason.
at the end of the day, eli lake is a power-worshiping lewinsky
It may have hurt government personnel and diplomatic relationships due to lack of trust of secrecy, but the actions of government personnel and secrets have nothing to do with the American people or the economy. It's all USG and nothing to do with the taxpayers.
I just feel like this whole discussion was nonsensical since it totally missed the point that the USG protects and benefits its own at the expense of the people. I mean, do you really think those secrets and the reason to keep them secret have anything to do with the American people?