Bradley Manning Trial : A Black Eye for Obama

One of the issues that has disturbed me greatly about Barack Obama's administration is its insistence on making an example out of Bradley Manning for the release of documents that disclosed war crimes by U;S. military personnel while failing to do anything to prosecute most of those who committed atrocities.  Seemingly, Manning's real crime was to expose the truth about America's crimes - crimes for which America would demand prosecution and consequences if done by any one else.  The hypocrisy is stunning.  Yet Obama continues the quest against Manning while allowing murderers and war criminals a pass.   Much of America's history has severe ugliness - Manning apparently sought to let Americans know what horrors were being done in their name.  A piece in The Advocate looks at this warped situation.  Here are excerpts:

On Saturday, women from the activist group Code Pink strung the gates of Fort Meade, Md., with Nobel Peace Prize emblems for Bradley Manning. The demonstration was one of many scheduled throughout the coming week to call attention to Manning’s court-martial trial, which began Monday at Fort Meade, about 30 miles north of Washington, D.C.

Manning, 25, has been in prison for more than 1,100 days — since he was arrested in Baghdad May 26, 2010. He has spent three birthdays in prison. He was held in indefinite detention and solitary confinement for much of that time under extreme conditions that included not being allowed to lie down or close his eyes except during certain nighttime hours; not being allowed a pillow, sheet, or blanket; being forced to be naked and searched every morning; and not being allowed out of his windowless cell. 

 

Because of his extreme treatment and the crimes of which he is accused, Manning has been deemed a prisoner of conscience by human rights groups worldwide. Amnesty International has called his treatment "torture" and has called for his release. He was nominated for the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize. 

[M]ake no mistake: Manning’s is the real trial of the century. Manning is essentially being tried for treason. One of the charges against him is "aiding the enemy," which is treasonous (and a charge he categorically denies). Another is larceny — meaning he stole the documents he is alleged to have distributed to WikiLeaks.

 

The Obama administration and the Department of Justice have referred to Manning’s case as "the largest security breach in U.S. history." 

 

Manning is not a spy, but he’s being treated like one, prosecuted under the Espionage Act of 1917. In fact, emails in the months leading up to the release of the documents between Manning and Adrian Lamo specifically state that Manning knew he could have sold any of the documents he handled daily or given them to a foreign government. But, in his own words, he said the documents were "public data ... it belongs in the public domain ... information should be free."

 

That’s the real story here. What did the American people have a right to know and when did they have a right to know it? How much influence did the publication of these documents have on ending the combat portion of the Iraq war? How much transparency did they force in an administration that the American Civil Liberties Union has called "the least transparent in U.S. history"? Manning has already been credited with influencing the Arab Spring, which has thus far toppled five dictatorships. And Vietnam War leaker Daniel Ellsberg has said on several occasions that Manning’s actions have "saved tens of thousands of lives."

What hasn’t been discussed in the mainstream media is how much Manning’s treatment and trial have to do with the consistent repression of whistle-blowers and investigative reporters by the Obama administration. 

 

Journalists have had to file suit to have access to Manning’s trial. In a complaint filed in federal district court last week, a group of journalists asked for a preliminary injunction to compel the judge to "grant the public and press access to the government’s filings, the court’s own orders, and transcripts of the proceedings."   That’s how difficult it is to get the real story about Manning’s trial.

 

The Obama administration could have accepted that plea deal and agreed to sentencing. Those charges carry a two-year maximum sentence each but could have added up to 20 years in prison had Manning received the maximum.

 

The Obama administration, however, is making an example of Manning. His trial is a classic show trial of the sort usually seen only in countries that are not democracies. Manning’s trial is meant to dissuade any and all whistle-blowers from coming forward. It is also intended to act as a deterrent to any dissidence within the military, Pentagon, State Department, CIA, FBI or any other government agency — or beyond. 

 

What’s more, many question whether Manning will — or can — even receive a fair trial, given the attitude the administration has already taken toward him and the treatment he has received thus far with no intervention from President Obama or any other member of the administration.  President Obama could pardon Manning; other leakers have been pardoned, even during other wars.

 

There's much more, but the message is that the Obama administration is engaged in shameful conduct the goal of which is in my view to cover up atrocities and make it harder for others to expose American military misdeeds.