Can Pfc. Bradley Manning Have It Both Ways?

I’ve been wondering about Pfc. Bradley Manning, the Army intelligence analyst accused of passing hundreds of thousands of military and State Department documents to WikiLeaks.

It can’t be good news for him that we rarely hear a peep about his status. It’s peculiar that a person has to look for news of the case that created such a colossal commotion just a few months ago.

It’s almost as if the US Government, and the mainstream media, “disappeared” him.

But of course we’ve had vital news items draw our attention and energy: Schwarzenegger’s baby-gate. Gingrich’s vacation-gate. And a favorite: Weiner’s wiener-gate. With such noteworthy and historically relevant events at the forefront, it’s a wonder newspapers have any column inches available for all the wars and financial quagmires we’re slogging through, let alone a follow-up on Pfc. Manning.

Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, released a statement saying no one around the globe has come to harm because of the information Manning and he released. Maybe that’s the real story and it’s just not juicy enough to get a headline.

The courts will decide if Pfc. Manning meets the standards to be considered a true and honest whistleblower.

A legitimate whistleblower has several attributes, follows certain protocol, and has noble goals for taking such radical actions. We don’t yet know if Manning rises to those standards.

A true, red-blooded whistleblower has an altruistic intent: to right a wrong, to assist the weak in their battle against the government (or corporate) machine, to protect the defenseless, to alert the public to fraud or large-scale waste.

Did Pvt. Manning have a particular piece of wrongdoing on his mind to correct? He seems to have released a flood of information about a myriad of topics in a rush of emotion. There are multiple pellets to chase down from his scattergun.

The material he turned over to WikiLeaks is so wide ranging as to defy categorization. If he wanted us to know that government and military operations are ugly and deceptive, OK, but it’s old news. That diplomats are diplomatic to your face and tacky behind your back? Got it.

According to Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller, avenues are available for whistleblowers to report wrongdoing, even in classified matters, “and we encourage people to use them. But people cannot make unilateral decisions to publicly release information that jeopardizes national security. When that happens, the government has an obligation to act.”

There is no evidence – which we’ve been allowed to see anyway – that Manning followed the procedures set out in the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, which provides these methods for employees to bring malefactions to light without compromising security. But, neither can we be sure he acted unilaterally.

Did he speak to his superiors about the egregious infractions wearing on his conscience? If he were thwarted there, did he attempt to draw the attention of his congressman? Again, we haven’t been allowed to know.

Is Manning a true whistleblower, a hero who put himself at risk for the benefit of others, or the “conflicted” young man, “prone to emotional outbursts and impassioned by his beliefs,” profiled in the Washington Post?

With the dearth of information, we cannot know for sure. This is ominous for him, and perhaps for others who hold dark secrets and wish to bring them to light.

It is ominous for us as well. Is our government so insecure that it must squelch anyone who dares challenge its mode of operating?

The conditions under which Manning was detained at a marine base in Quantico, Va., and the resignation of Former State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley after criticizing the Defense Department’s treatment of Manning, do not bolster confidence in the government’s stance.

That Manning was moved to a medium-security prison in Leavenworth, Kansas, after President Obama assured us “the terms of his confinement [in Quantico] are appropriate and are meeting our basic standards” makes us uneasy.

Did Pfc. Manning attempt to dodge the consequences of his actions by remaining anonymous? The Wall Street Journal says an honest whistleblower, with the courage of his convictions, engages in classic civil disobedience, breaking a law openly, specifically to call attention to that wrongful law. He accepts the consequences of his actions by doing so publicly.

Democracy thrives on the truth and transparency. We must have it. Therefore, the impact of the release may outweigh the circumstance. The ends may justify the means.

Otherwise, he only blew the whistle on himself.

Have the American People Spoken to Egypt?

For the United States government to send Egypt wishes of happiness and success is a little like Michael Vick sending words of encouragement to the American Kennel Club.

Can we maintain any degree of credibility in the Middle East now that our duplicity is common knowledge? Or put more accurately: Can we regain or even attain credibility? How?

The word is out that a string of United States presidents supported Hosni Mubarak’s oppressive regime for lo these many decades because it suited us. It was our means to our ends. We got what we wanted from the Egyptian government; and it wasn’t so hard to turn a blind eye to its abuse of its own people. Shame on us.

We’re embarrassed for our President who now must smile and offer his hand (our hands) with a disingenuous blush as he congratulates those who see us for who we’ve been. As Google’s Regional Marketing Manager, Wael Ghonim, unofficial leader of the essentially bloodless revolution said very plainly, “Dear Western Governments: You have been supporting the regime that was oppressing us for 30 years. Please don’t get involved now. We don’t need you.”

In toppling Mubarak, they have, in effect, thrown us off their backs as well.

How cynical we were in the process to show early support for Mubarak’s heir apparent, Vice President Suleiman, when the world has read WikiLeaks. We initially backed the one clearly shown in embassy cables to be Mubarak’s consigliere! “Oops! Forgot you could read. Really, we want the people’s demands to be met. We support their quest for democracy, justice, and empowerment.” How hollow.

I’ve been reminded that the United States was in league with the Russians to win WWI and even with the unspeakable Stalin in WWII. So the enemies of our enemies became our friends. We stood with the unsavory and defeated the devil himself together. But then, when the common goal was achieved, we each withdrew to our respective corners.

Not so with Mubarak or his predecessors. We stuck by them and their cronies. It was convenient, the path of least resistance. Maybe because the goal of our deal with that devil was subterranean, open-ended, a Viet Nam of commitment, our government just kept pretending it was OK. After all, the Egyptian people hadn’t found their voice (or Facebook) yet.

Yes, I know. Politics makes strange bedfellows (see WWI and WWII, above). But if the United States is truly exceptional in the world arena, we’ve got to do better.

We believe in our uniqueness in the world. We built our nation on the concept of freedom and the fundamental right of humans to enjoy all its benefits. But if we don’t have the courage of our founding ideals, we surely will shrivel into the realm of the disrespected and be treated with disregard.

Here’s an idealistic dream: If we encounter another snake in the grass, let’s not make friends with it and bring it mice to eat. And let’s not become obliged to it either. At the very least, let’s step around it. If we want to help human beings, we must help them all, even if it is only through our refusal to support the morally corrupt and self-serving tyrants who oppress them.

Let’s tell the truth and turn away from evil. What evil is necessary? Only that which serves selfish ends. It seems we have soiled ourselves with the evil of abandoning one human for the benefit of another. It’s not okay. Ghonim says it best with the title of his Facebook page which sparked a revolution: “We are all Khaled Said,” referring to a young man beaten to death for speaking out against Mubarak’s brutal police state.

You say you want a revolution? Well you know, we all want to change the world. This time, the world is changing in spite of us. A section of the globe we haven’t heard, or haven’t listened to, is speaking. How have we positioned ourselves to be respected and influential in the conversation?

So it is with mixed emotions that we watch the historic events unfolding in Egypt and across the Middle East: With awe, with joy, and with anticipation for the Egyptian people. With anxiety and hope for the people of Tunisia and Iran, Bahrain and Yemen.

With humble heart for America.

WikiLeaks for You & Me

I don’t know if we truly need to know everything WikiLeaks thinks we need to know to be good Americans.

Do we really need to know that Hilary Clinton called Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi “odd”? Apparently he is odd. Eccentric at best. Creepily so. Is it a threat to national security that Mr. Gaddafi now knows she called him odd?

So what if the Turkish Foreign Minister now knows his peers in the Middle East consider him “extremely dangerous”? Does anyone suppose he’s surprised by the revelation? Has he been left alone in the henhouse up to now? Or haven’t we been watching him pretty closely? He must have noticed folks taking the eggs with them when they left the room.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad now knows other world leaders think of him as a little Hitler. He’s probably proud.

No one in the world arena is truly surprised by these revelations. Nor should any of us be surprised. Caring parents say things about their children that their children should never hear. Teachers vent about students, and go on to serve them well and faithfully. Bosses kvetch about their employees…you see.

We might be surprised if we knew the exact language used by diplomats around the world to describe Mrs. Clinton, or Condi Rice before her. Or George W. Bush. We might feign shock if we heard the descriptors applied to Barak Obama or the United States Congress. But the shock would be only a response to a particular word choice, not that others speak frankly, vent frustrations, or express concerns about the behaviors of those with whom they must put on the good face and deal.

It’s closed-room stuff that is not for public consumption, but now we know. There is no Santa Claus and our parents probably wanted to leave us at the campground at least once when we thought we knew everything.

I certainly don’t envy Hilary having to face those who’ve now heard the blunt references to their personalities and private lives. Part of what’s on in their minds though, has to be, “if she only knew what I said about her!”

This stuff is covering a big portion of the media plate, but it is not the meat of the meal.

We truly need to be concerned that a sad, bullied, and now vindictive private in the US Army could so easily access and share a trove of confidential and secret documents as his gotcha for the State Department. He needs consequences, and likely will get them as a first level scapegoat for the embarrassment much bigger wigs are suffering thanks to him. Clearly, folks in security and defense have some explaining to do, as well.

I don’t like that Julian Assange at WikiLeaks feels free and justified in publishing information that might put even one United States citizen in real jeopardy. Of course, the New York Times and other more traditional outlets published the documents too. Somebody close to the top needs to review the definition of “need to know” and even treason, and decide how bright a line to draw and how swift and clear a response to make.

I don’t like it, but I see the point about an informed citizenry when it comes to our government turning a blind eye to human rights abuse here (where we stand to gain), but condemning it there (where we have little to lose). At some point, we’ve got to stop kidding ourselves about ourselves and our government.

I don’t like it that the United States and its citizens (you and I) look two-faced, but I guess we are. We’re human. We want to believe we’re better than we are. We do believe it until someone like Assange comes to our party with a great big mirror and a klieg light. The release of some of this information might serve to get us off our tall white stallions and our penchant for preaching to those who may know us better than we know ourselves.

But does all this muck make us a bad country, a bad citizenry? No. I don’t think so. The United States is good, and we are good Americans. We just need to be more sober in our self-assessments, and more generous in assessing our colleagues at the world table. We’re not so different. We all have a lot to forgive, and a lot to learn.





.