MANNING COURT-MARTIAL

Government’s big win in the Manning case

 
 
After his conviction, Bradley Manning apologized, saying he did not mean to "hurt people."
After his conviction, Bradley Manning apologized, saying he did not mean to "hurt people."
AP

Edwardwasserman.com

All in all, it’s hard to see how the trial of Private Bradley Manning could have ended any better for the U.S. government.

For starters, Manning was convicted, not that the verdict was ever in doubt, with President Obama declaring that “he broke the law” even before the trial opened, the president apparently having skipped the class at Harvard Law where the presumption of innocence was covered. Still, even though it was a foregone conclusion, the guilty verdict meant that the government’s three-year enterprise of pursuing, jailing, tormenting and finally prosecuting the hapless soldier for leaking military and diplomatic files, more than half of them not classified at all, gets at least a light dusting of vindication.

Not only vindication, but fairness too. The military judge herself gagged on the charge that Manning had aided the enemy — a count that would have made his leaks to the news media no different from a sale of troop deployment data to the Taliban. The judge’s rejection of the aiding-the-enemy charge was applauded as evidence of wisdom and restraint, rather than an implicit repudiation of the whole point of the case. If enemies didn’t benefit, why should we care about the leaks as anything more than a momentary bureaucratic embarrassment? Why on Earth did the prosecution demand 60 years behind bars?

The news media — the only entities that unquestionably benefited from the leaks — helped keep the idea alive that something momentous, even transformative, was at stake. Without doing any actual reporting to determine how much the 700,000 documents Manning channeled to Wikileaks actually mattered, the media insisted his actions were a grave offense. The New York Times, which denounced editorially the severity of the sentence, in its news columns still referred to his actions, breathlessly, as “a gigantic leak that lifted the veil on American military and diplomatic activities around the world.” It did?

Then Manning himself relieved the government of any obligation to show that his actions actually did any harm when he appealed for compassion during the sentencing phase of his trial, referring to evils that were never introduced into evidence or documented in press accounts. “I am sorry that my actions hurt people. I’m sorry that they hurt the United States,” he said. “I am sorry for the unintended consequences of my actions. When I made these decisions I believed I was going to help people, not hurt people.”

Finally, facing 35 years in prison, Manning announced he wanted henceforth to be known as Chelsea, not Bradley, and intended to live the rest of his, or now her, life as the woman she had always been. She would seek whatever hormonal and surgical interventions that might require. Catnip to the media, and various news outfits expended barrels of digital ink figuring out whether Manning would get the medical help she sought, and exploring the grammatical rules that should govern references to her gender.

For the government, it was too good to be true. This idealistic young soldier, outraged by the deceit and wrongdoing he discovered at work, says he’s sorry for having wanted to make these wrongs publicly known, admits doing incalculable harm — though without evidence of any — allows actions that others regarded as heroic to be redefined as the byproduct of psychosexual dysfunction.

The full range of realities that Manning’s leaks brought to light has yet to be inventoried, and only a fraction of them have been made public. The Guardian, the London daily that co-published the military and diplomatic logs that Manning gave to Wikileaks, has argued that some of the most contentious information he made available — the torture of prisoners by this country’s Iraqi allies, for instance, and the secret (and far more accurate) in-house U.S. estimates of the appalling level of civilian suffering in Iraq — has already quietly slipped into the official history of the aftermath of the U.S. invasion.

That suggests the debt we owe Manning may be hard to determine, as is the answer to the question of why that information was sealed away in the first place.

What’s not hard to determine is the lopsided sense of justice his sentence represents. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars, it seems clear, offered untold opportunities for brutality and crime, and at this moment the argument that either war was either necessary or successful isn’t an easy one to make.

It would indeed be sad and telling if the strongest reckoning from those wars, the sternest punishment, should go not to their architects, nor to those who waged them wrongly, but to a lowly grunt whose only sin was to try to get the rest of us to pay attention to them.

Read more Edward Wasserman stories from the Miami Herald

  •  
WASSERMAN

    NEWS MEDIA

    Behind a diplomatic tiff in the news business, a public duty

    In an unusual dust-up, the top editor of the Washington Post has complained to The New York Times that it failed to credit the Post for work that preceded, and nourished, important stories that the Times later ran. Why this should matter to you is worth exploring.

  •  
WASSERMAN

    NSA LEAKS

    The case the media should make for Edward Snowden

    The news media’s silence while some of its boldest sources are prosecuted or jailed is something I’ve been protesting for some time, so naturally I was pleased when The New York Times, in an eloquent editorial on New Year’s Day, urged the White House to show leniency toward Edward Snowden. He’s the former contract worker for the National Security Agency, whose leaks continue to expose the NSA’s monumental, intrusive and illegal monitoring of civilian communications here and abroad.

  •  

Crying children, including 9-year-old Kim Phuc, center, run down Route 1 near Trang Bang, Vietnam after an aerial napalm attack on suspected Viet Cong in 1972.

    MEDIA

    Media focus on ‘moral injury’ masks disregard of civilian war suffering

    Just before Christmas I heard a report on public radio concerning “moral injury” among Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. That’s the psychic trauma caused by acting or witnessing acts that conflict with core values — brutalizing prisoners, for instance, or killing children.

Miami Herald

Join the
Discussion

The Miami Herald is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere on the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

The Miami Herald uses Facebook's commenting system. You need to log in with a Facebook account in order to comment. If you have questions about commenting with your Facebook account, click here.

Have a news tip? You can send it anonymously. Click here to send us your tip - or - consider joining the Public Insight Network and become a source for The Miami Herald and el Nuevo Herald.

Hide Comments

This affects comments on all stories.

Cancel OK

  • Marketplace

Today's Circulars

  • Quick Job Search

Enter Keyword(s) Enter City Select a State Select a Category