As one whistleblower lies safe from his pursuers, at least for the time being, another whistleblower has been sentenced. This summer, Edward Snowden caused an international discussion about privacy and surveillance when he leaked top-secret information about the surveillance state. On Aug. 21, military judge Col. Denise Lind sentenced Army Pfc. Bradley Manning to 35 years in prison for giving 700,000 military and diplomatic documents to WikiLeaks. Although the cases of Snowden and Manning are not identical in nature, they do share a common theme: revealing government deceit.
Manning was convicted of 20 criminal charges, six of which include violations of the 1917 Espionage Act. Prosecutors explained that Osama bin Laden presumably read some of the leaked documents, but despite this, Manning still has plenty of support from citizens who value honesty and transparency.
Not only does Manning have supporters, but he has loud ones. Some of his followers formed the Bradley Manning Support Network and nearly 1,000 people rallied at Fort Meade on June 1 to show their allegiance.
The head of the American Civil Liberties Union’s speech and technology project, Ben Wizner, argued in his favor saying, “When a soldier who shared information with the press and public is punished far more harshly than others who tortured prisoners and killed civilians, something is seriously wrong with our justice system.”
A broad cross-section of the U.S. public, from renowned linguist and political dissident Noam Chomsky, who said “Bradley Manning should be regarded as a hero,” to the likes of Lady Gaga, who said that she was “devastated” by Manning’s sentence, has shown support for Manning’s actions. However, his detractors have derided him as an enemy of the state, with pundits even calling for his execution.
But although Manning did reveal classified information, he was acquitted of the most serious charge, aiding the enemy. He apologized for his actions but explained, “When I made these decisions, I believed I was going to help people, not hurt people.” He gave the information to WikiLeaks to expose the United States military’s “bloodlust.”
Some are comparing Manning to Daniel Ellsberg, the defense analyst who leaked the Pentagon Papers in 1971. “I think his example will always be an inspiration of civil and moral courage to truth tellers in the future,” Ellsberg said of Manning.
When Manning released his information, which included a video of a helicopter attack that killed at least nine people, he hoped to reveal the “true costs of war.”
“We were obsessed with capturing and killing human targets on lists and ignoring goals and missions. I believed if the public, particularly the American public, could see this it could spark a debate on the military and our foreign policy in general [that] might cause society to reconsider the need to engage in counter-terrorism while ignoring the human situation of the people we engaged with every day,” Manning said.
Before the leaks, the U.S. military could easily wear the “good guy” façade. Under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment, … outrages upon personal dignity [and] in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment” are prohibited.” Because of Manning, the public now knows that the military has not obeyed these rules.
But Manning, of course, has joined the league of now ten people who have been convicted under the Espionage Act — seven under the Obama Administration. What will happen to Snowden remains to be seen, though it is likely that he also would be martyred under Obama’s war on whistleblowers.
Transparency cannot always be achieved, as it sometimes puts our safety at risk. But when transparency does not affect safety, we need people like Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden who are willing to break policy when the policy is unjust.