Bradley Manning Nominated For Nobel Peace Prize As People Begin Realizing How Damaging His Case Is To A Free Press
from the wake-up-people dept
With Bradley Manning pleading guilty to some of the lesser charges against him, Harvard law professor Yochai Benkler -- who is a possible expert witness in the trial -- has an excellent and detailed post about why the entire case against him should be seen as a threat to the nature of whistleblowing and a free press. He notes that the US prides itself on its support of the First Amendment, even in uncomfortable situations, but this case could flip that around in a very damaging way.A country's constitutional culture is made up of the stories we tell each other about the kind of nation we are. When we tell ourselves how strong our commitment to free speech is, we grit our teeth and tell of Nazis marching through Skokie. And when we think of how much we value our watchdog press, we tell the story of Daniel Ellsberg. Decades later, we sometimes forget that Ellsberg was prosecuted, smeared, and harassed. Instead, we express pride in a man's willingness to brave the odds, a newspaper’s willingness to take the risk of publishing, and a Supreme Court’s ability to tell an overbearing White House that no, you cannot shut up your opponents.Yet, in the case of Manning, the government is going much, much, much further. It is trying to make leaking information to the press the equivalent of espionage and aiding the enemy -- a capital offense. If you want to create chilling effects on free speech and a free press, this is how you do it. If you believe in the stories above, about the fundamental respect for the First Amendment, then the nature of the prosecution should worry you a great deal.
As for those who claim that leaking to Wikileaks is not like the Pentagon Papers or leaking something to the press, Benkler's detailed analysis shows why that's bunk. Since Wikileaks released some of the material that Manning sent them, the organization has been painted as being this evil anti-American organization, and there's also been a big spotlight on Julian Assange, who is certainly not presented as a particularly likeable character. But, as Benkler points out, before Wikileaks got that material, it was regularly seen as an upstart media property, and a great place for whistleblowers to go to expose fraud and corruption. In other words, the idea that Manning chose to go to Wikileaks to harm the US seems quite unlikely. His story of exposing wrongdoing by the US and forcing a debate on how to have America live up to its principles has more credibility when you realize just how Wikileaks was portrayed prior to Manning's material being submitted:
The reputation that WikiLeaks has been given by most media outlets over the past two and a half years, though, obscures much of this—it just feels less like “the press” than the New York Times. This is actually the point on which I am expected to testify at the trial, based on research I did over the months following the first WikiLeaks disclosure in April 2010. When you read the hundreds of news stories and other materials published about WikiLeaks before early 2010, what you see is a young, exciting new media organization. The darker stories about Julian Assange and the dangers that the site poses developed only in the latter half of 2010, as the steady release of leaks about the U.S. triggered ever-more hyperbolic denouncements from the Administration (such as Joe Biden's calling Assange a “high-tech terrorist”), and as relations between Assange and his traditional media partners soured.It's sometimes difficult to remember that, given everything that happened in the past two and a half years.
In early 2010, when Manning did his leaking, none of that had happened yet. WikiLeaks was still a new media phenom, an outfit originally known for releasing things like a Somali rebel leader’s decision to assassinate government officials in Somalia, or a major story exposing corruption in the government of Daniel Arap Moi in Kenya. Over the years WikiLeaks also exposed documents that shined a light on U.S. government practices, such as operating procedures in Camp Delta in Guantanamo or a draft of a secretly negotiated, highly controversial trade treaty called the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. But that was not the primary focus. To name but a few examples, it published documents that sought to expose a Swiss Bank’s use of Cayman accounts to help rich clients avoid paying taxes, oil related corruption in Peru, banking abuses in Iceland, pharmaceutical company influence peddling at the World Health Organization, and extra-judicial killings in Kenya. For its work, WikiLeaks won Amnesty International's New Media award in 2009 and the Freedom of Expression Award from the British magazine, Index of Censorship, in 2008.
Benkler goes on to point out that the "precedents" that the US tries to rely on to argue that whistleblowing to the press is a form of aiding the enemy are ancient, obsolete and laughable. Many of the arguments go back to some Civil War-era precedents, and even then, when you look at the details you realize they were discussing something extremely different than what happened with Manning (i.e., the cases involved using the press to send coded messages about confidential info, not releasing the info to the public).
In the end, Benkler makes a powerful point:
If Bradley Manning is convicted of aiding the enemy, the introduction of a capital offense into the mix would dramatically elevate the threat to whistleblowers. The consequences for the ability of the press to perform its critical watchdog function in the national security arena will be dire. And then there is the principle of the thing. However technically defensible on the language of the statute, and however well-intentioned the individual prosecutors in this case may be, we have to look at ourselves in the mirror of this case and ask: Are we the America of Japanese Internment and Joseph McCarthy, or are we the America of Ida Tarbell and the Pentagon Papers? What kind of country makes communicating with the press for publication to the American public a death-eligible offense?Given all of that, you can see why some have nominated Manning for the Nobel Peace Prize. While it is highly unlikely that Manning will be given serious consideration for the prize, the more you look at the case, the more you realize how dangerous the US government's own argument is here, and how much of an attack it is on fundamental principles we supposedly believe in and fight for here in the US.
What a coup for Al Qaeda, to have maimed our constitutional spirit to the point where we might become that nation.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bradley manning, chilling effects, espionage, free speech, freedom of the press, nobel peace prize, whistleblowing, yochai benkler
Companies: wikileaks
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This guy may end getting the Capital Punishment. But unlike what used to happen in the past, information flows freely and a lot faster now. The US image already suffered a great blow since this started. A Capital Punishment will be really, really harmful to the US. And will strengthen dictatorships all over. In the end it's a loss for everybody.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Please tell me you don't actually think Henry Kissinger deserved a Nobel Peace prize....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Now when dennis deems mentioned Kissinger, it was to illustrate that there were worse people who received the prize than Obama.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If only more people had that courage ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If You Haven't Seen It
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=767&Item id=74&jumival=9779
I hope a copy of Mannings statement gets out. I also found it humorous that Manning would not answered questions during the hearing that would divulge classified information. Seems he is a strong person with a clear understanding of how to handle classified information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Most recently Manning’s leaking of classified documents led to the Obama Administration agreeing to withdraw all US troops from the occupation in Iraq, and Jónsdóttir felt this was reason to nominate Manning for the Peace Prize.
Except that troop withdrawal from Iraq began in June, 2009. Manning was shopping his wares to the NYT and WP in January, 2010. Wikileaks didn't get it until at least February, 2010.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_of_U.S._troops_from_Iraq
Sorry, to spoil more half-baked FUD with inconvenient facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But don't let that spoil your thinking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nelson Mandella (1993)
Kim Dae-jung (2000)
Liu Xiaobo (2010)
and yes, Alfred Nobel himself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the Nobel weren't a farce of well-connected people patting themselves on the back, I'd back his nomination. However I think he deserves recognition with substance... like a lifetime supply of beer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How About Carl von Ossietzky (Nobel Peace Price 1935)?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_von_Ossietzky
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
close but no banana
Now! what I would like to know is A) Wtf was a private doing having access to this confidential information and B) who was his commanding officer? as that person should not just be raked over the coals but charged as well!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: close but no banana
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: close but no banana
Additionally, it is so wrong that much of the dirty stuff found in the content happened, and there were no repercussions to those people involved. IT does shed a light to the public, just how dirty the US government is.
In the end, Manning took one for the team, that team being Human Beings. But I still stand by my words that the Military can not condone his actions, and he will suffer the consequences.
I think it is sad that everyone else involved (whether mentioned in the diplomatic cables or his higher ranks are not being involved or investigated at all. This trial is for show and the military want if over with as fast as possible.
For truth and freedom, he is a martyr, for American Military Intelligence, he is the worst type of enemy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: close but no banana
But not different from being a human being!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: close but no banana
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
leaking information to the press equivalent to espionage and aiding the enemy
My personal opinion is that there is no reason to keep most secrets. It is one thing to keep people and resources safe, (don't compromise access etc.) But is is another thing completely to keep the population in the dark about policies and practices.The government *should* fear the people and I believe if they kept far fewer secrets they would have far less to fear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: leaking information to the press equivalent to espionage and aiding the enemy
Manning mostly (if not entirely) revealed the second kind. His prosecution is a disgrace.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, yeah, except it's not.
2. Manning was charged under the UCMJ (Universal Code of Military Justice) for releasing classified information, the U.S. then being in a state of (conflict)...etc., etc.
No 'whistleblower' rights are being trampled on here - just the military doing what it needs to do to protect classified information. Manning lost those civilian protections once he agreed to be bound by the UCMJ. And even privates are taught about classified information (and what to do if you come across information you're not cleared for).
This man admits he intentionally procured classified information and transmitted it to people not cleared for that information, risking the lives of every serviceman in the theater at the time. (The extreme amount of information he passed means he did no 'vetting' of that information before sending it along.) He deserves his punishment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, yeah, except it's not.
Manning was an active servicemember with clearance when he distributed the information. This makes him subject to penalties for mishandling classified information and for being discilplined under the USCMJ.
What you haven't said is that he also swore an oath to defend the Constitution of the US. You may have also failed to mention that some take their morals, their oaths, or their beliefs in the Almighty much more to heart than others. Or that some people in military service do in fact run into some pretty awful realities... and many face deep moral conflicts just from the exposure.
You are correct though. And what you say lends creedence to my own dangling premise from earlier... that doing what Manning did takes testicular fortitude of the greatest scale.
What you said does back up my previously stated belief that it takes the largest scale of testicular fortitude to
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, yeah, except it's not.
The fact that this involves the military doesn't reduce the importance of whistle-blowing one iota. Do you really want a military that believes it can act in any way it wants without the chance of bad behaviour being made public? Do you genuinely believe that's a good result?
"This man admits he intentionally procured classified information and transmitted it to people not cleared for that information, risking the lives of every serviceman in the theater at the time."
Except even the military brass have admitted they can't point to any documented harm or genuine serious risk caused by the released docs. Just embarrassment. Oops.
"He deserves his punishment."
I don't think anyone, including Manning, expects him to avoid any punishment. The point is that the punishment he's received so far, and the potential punishment he faces if found guilty of all charges, are out of proportion with the crime and will create chilling effects that will allow the US military to carry on performing actions is doesn't want made public for fear of embarrassment or public backlash.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, yeah, except it's not.
Manning's charged violations have to do with the actions he is alleged to have performed, not the motivation with which he may have performed them. Whether he _thought_ something should be classified and not divulged isn't his business. The command structure declared it to be classified... it's classified. Transferring it to an unauthorized location is a violation of orders under military law, whether or not it's classified. Using unauthorized software on military computers is another. Getting around mandated security mechanisms is another. The folks over at Wikipedia have a complete itemized list of the charges against him here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_charges_against_Bradley_Manning
When recruit Manning raised his little pink hand and swore "...that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice," it had consequences - real-life consequences. Whether or not the court determines that he knowingly aided the enemy, the rest of the charges, if proven, are pretty serious on their own.
As to Manning being a whistle-blower in the legal sense, the military has a whistle-blower provision, but a pretty narrow one requiring that the military member report to Congress or to the Inspector General. Nothing about the press, public, or Wikileaks. The rules in the military are different than for the public. Pesky things, those oaths of service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh, yeah, except it's not.
"Pesky things, those oaths of service."
Especially when those who swore an oath to the constitution choose not to uphold it in order to keep their job, rank, social status, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh, yeah, except it's not.
In other words the military are supposed to "follow orders".
If I remember correctly "following orders" was not a defence at the Nurnberg trials.
Every human being has moral obligations that transcend the rules of the system he finds himself within.
Of course he can expect that organisation to follow its own rules and it may not go well for him - but in the final analysis the organisation will be judged by history on grounds that go beyond its own rules.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh, yeah, except it's not.
Translation: his superiors said they didn't want that stuff to get out, and, what's more, the place that the files were sent was somewhere they didn't want those files going. This stands in sharp contrast to standard whistleblowers, who I guess ask permission first or something?
"Using unauthorized software on military computers is another. Getting around mandated security mechanisms is another."
Also, apparently he was looking somewhere he wasn't supposed to look with a program he wasn't supposed to use. Surely no whistleblower in the history of whistles has done such a heinous thing!
"the military has a whistle-blower provision, but a pretty narrow one requiring that the military member report to Congress or to the Inspector General. Nothing about the press, public, or Wikileaks."
And now apparently revealing information to the press or public means that a soldier isn't a whistleblower. I now know what it feels like for one's mind to be boggled. I can't even be sarcastic about this.
The charges on Wikipedia don't impress me much either, since they all appear to be in the same vein of "sending something somewhere that the military didn't want it sent". Upholding those rules here would be the death of whistleblower protections in the military, though by the sound of it it's more like refusing to uphold those rules would reanimate whistleblower protections in the military.
What I've learned from this is that if I ever feel like being corrupt, I need to become a high-ranking military officer, because they've got a deal that the average corporate head would rape a porcupine for.
And now for a classic literature reference and a conclusion.
"Whether he _thought_ something should be classified and not divulged isn't his business."
Business?! Mankind is his business! The common welfare is his business!
"The rules in the military are different than for the public."
They sure as hell are. That is not a good thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why it isnt a case of whistle blowing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why it isnt a case of whistle blowing
Did you miss the part where things that had no need to be secret are being declared secret so we can cover up the Government violating the basic tenets of our society?
I don't think your being realistic about what the Government knows and is trying to keep secret because it would devastate the image held by the most ardent supporters of 'Merika.
To prevent terror they terrorize others.
To prevent terror they weasel around the law.
To prevent terror they piss on the Constitution and the citizens.
To prevent terror they are doing the things done by the most 'horrible' nations... but pretending they are not.
They slap the word secret on it to hide how horrible we really are, allowing the citizens to stay in this illusion of they hate us for our freedom... not because we took their husbands for wearing a common brand of watch and beat the crap out of them until they admitted to some scheme. Not because we are a land of tolerance who has leaders who are more intolerant than the Mullahs they denounce.
Not because we are the shining example of Democracy, but because we make sure our corporate sponsors get first bid on rebuilding.
Not because we call out leaders who turn off or censor the internet, while they try and pass bills giving that power to media cartels.
Maybe its time we stop telling everyone else to live up to the standard we aren't even meeting anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why it isnt a case of whistle blowing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you consider the press and the people to be your enemy, then you are on the path to treason. All it takes is a violent act to go with the viewpoint and there is a firing squad in your future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sgt. Bradley Manning / US Army
Sir, pardon Bradley Manning. You know it's the right thing to do, and if you do not, Ms. Michelle Obama, your terrific wife, should advise you on what needs doing and when.
C'mon man, it's your second, the no-fault, last term (barring something astronomical). Let's do the right thing. History will approve the light brown icing on the flannery cake.
With the greatest of respect, Sir, I remain, your devoted supporter, Herbert Korenberg, now subject to 2 presidents.
Oi vey!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Last Word
“Nelson Mandella (1993)
Kim Dae-jung (2000)
Liu Xiaobo (2010)
and yes, Alfred Nobel himself.