The first letter about Private Manning intended to place his ordeal and trial into the
wider context of an age in American politics obscured by an apparent sacrifice of morality
to short-term gains and future résumés.
Yet, new reports breaking every day make ‘keen’ perceptions obsolete
overnight. Truth be told, some of the
things stated in my first letter are already out of date or just plain wrong. For example, this column by George Will in
the Washington Post, which came to my attention through my enlightening,
if virtual, friendship with Dr William Monie Bauer on FaceBook, shows how
quickly things change as information surfaces as it inevitably will.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-f-will-lois-lerner-the-scowling-face-of-the-state/2013/06/12/e644307c-d2d5-11e2-a73e-826d299ff459_story.html
Before Mr
Will’s analysis empirically placed Lois Lerner at the center of political malfeasance
in the past, we all knew that the culture of the I.R.S. had rotted from the
inside out. Previously, I had privately
theorized, and still surmise, that much of the problem might have lain in the
question of who assigned the bonuses to senior officials. If bonuses are doled out by political
appointees, the incentive to ‘manage-up’ would be very strong, for many irresistible. Mr Will’s column, however, quickly removed
any lingering doubts about the advisability of an independent council.
Within this
wider context of the collapse of principle, my argument in favor of Bradley
Manning’s innocence – no, in favor his vindication – rests on three premises:
- the test of time;
- the test of justice; and,
- the test of truth.
Private Manning passes these three ‘tests’ quite easily. While Private Manning has faults, to be sure,
he drew on something very decent within his character that flouted everyday
flaws with which we humans must live and deal.
The test of time. It has
been three years since these leaks occurred and there has been little, if any, discernible
fall-out against U.S. national interests.
Some people have suffered for writing stupid things in e-mails – a bane
of mine, as my sister and as my mentor in banking can amply attest. Others have been embarrassed for things that
were classified to suppress public exposure of unfortunate actions, including
the killing of a Reuter’s reporter and his crew in Sadr City in 2007. But the U.S. faces no existential threats or enduring
direct challenges to its stature.
Credibility
of the national purpose of American beneficence is under some scrutiny but that
is all. If betrayal of the nuclear
secrets to the erstwhile U.S.S.R. or missile technology to Red China – or even
the truly odious treason of Aldrich Ames – did not sink or even swerve the U.S.
from its interests, these disclosures through Wiki-Leaks almost certainly will
not. In fact, they are healthy since
they are getting the ‘collective head’ of our citizenry back into the ‘game’ of
democratic accountability.
The test of justice.
This test has two parts. One
military, related to Bradley Manning’s oath to protect the Constitution and the
United States of America, as well as another, related to the events being
disclosed. In this case, I will address the
second part first. Was Bradley Manning bringing
to light an unjust policy of his government?
I would argue he was, at least in the case of Afghanistan and of Iraq
before the 2008 surge. Why were these
policies fundamentally unjust when the intentions were manifestly just or, at
least, popularly endorsed as such at their outsets?
Because a
long enough period of time had elapsed to clarify that an unchanging continuation
of the just intention would predictably produce human suffering and death. In essence, humanitarian fallout
of a failing policy trumped the continued application of its just premises. That is to say: bloody consequences
reasonably foreseen blighted the initial intent. Consequently, Bradley Manning brought to
light a fundamentally unjust policy. (As
an aside, I believe that President Bush’s decision to surge was the second
great moral decision he made on Iraq; that will have to wait to another
discussion.)
Now for the
second part. The Nuremburg trials may
have reached too far by sentencing Axis military commanders to death for their
decisions in the field, on the seas or in the air. Nevertheless, one clear message emerged from hanging complicit military leaders, in addition to others who waged a stark genocide
against two peoples: simply following orders is not an excuse. If he did not raise moral objections internally,
perhaps then Corporal Manning should have before routing this information to
the public. Such an option was likely impractical,
if not impossible; such a protest may have only precluded Bradley Manning’s
future access to that information to release it.
The test of truth. Were
these truthfully state secrets that Bradley Manning divulged? No. The
classification system has been thoroughly compromised from within. As I learned several times in information
security classes, classified information has to be approved as classified by a
few specifically designated personnel who tend to be outside of the groups
generating the documents. The thresholds
for what constitute secret information (or higher) are very high. Yet people not authorized to classify
information do it all the time.
That
creates a situation of inevitable intellectual conflicts or confusions of
interests, if not outright cognitive corruption. It is very easy for one to view the interest
of his mission (or unit or armed service) as integral the national interest and
then, over time, for that same person to accede to the temptation of conflating
her personal interest with those of the mission and unit, previously equated
with the national interest. My particular
rationale – right here, right now – for such an equation and conflation of
interests would sound like the following (I believe).
Heck, I only want to protect my country and
look out for my brothers-in-arms or fellow public servants. Jeez, if I make a mistake, the consequences
may hurt my compatriots, my branch of the national service and, thus, the
country’s policy or mission. Now come
on, people, these stack up to hurting America’s position in the world or, at
least, in this part of the world – that is to say: the national interest. Look
it: I only want what’s best for my country and the Fredonian people…Frankly, I find this line of reasoning to be pretty convincing as I
munch on a burrito in México. Honestly, I have seen
drug-abusing alcoholics spew this non-sense when their blurred judgments were endangering
host-country counterparts.
Now, imagine
if I were wearing the uniform of my country or were a foreign service officer but
twenty or thirty years younger – not munching on burritos anytime I want to but
facing bunches of bullets at any time or burning the candle at both ends to get
the job done, neither necessarily of my choosing. You bet that line of reasoning would seduce
me, and quickly. All that said, I would
be feckless – perhaps negligent – if I failed to acknowledge that little things
indeed need to be classified. These are
the times and places of military operations, whether they concern village
stability or kinetic missions. Yet these
can be safely de-classified after the fact, as Private Manning negotiated
carefully with Wiki-Leaks.
Conclusion. So why
was Corporal Manning publicly disparaged, demoted and dehumanized? Why is Private Manning being tried for
charges not too far shy of treason? As far as I can see, because he did not ask
permission to do what he felt was right.
Count me as one who agrees with
this young man. Count me as one who
envies his courage; I would not have done the same – no matter how neurotic
the reasons – at his age. In closing, I
remain convinced that, as this showcase trial (thank you, Graham Nash) grinds
on, a timely irony will compel the attention of Americans of many walks of life
and vocations: that the prosecution (i.e., the U.S. Army as the face of the
U.S. government) – and not the defendant – is on trial here.
