Bradley Manning. PHOTO: AFP
The case, being heard at the heavily secured Fort Meade military installation in Maryland, raises some very delicate questions, pitching the issue of military security — which all nations do indeed consider vital — against the right of the people to know the truth. The leaked papers did indeed give us a startling insight into the world of US foreign policy and revealed a great deal about how it is shaped. Manning’s lawyer says that the young man was confused and wished to put the truth before the American people, including the killing of civilians by troops. The prosecution says, he delivered information straight into the hands of al Qaeda, jeopardising security.
The affair, of course, divides people, not only in the US but also around the world. The issue of national security interests, as opposed to the right to know, is an extremely emotive affair. The decision of The New York Times and the Guardian to publish the leaks also, in some ways, upset the age-old concept of media ethics. Manning’s supporters are already claiming he will not receive a fair trial. They have been pointing to steps taken by the US military, such as being forced to turn their ‘truth’ t-shirts inside out before entering the court to follow proceedings. It will have to be seen which way things go. But the whole matter has certainly thrown light on just how covertly and secretly states act, telling quite a different story to people while acting in a completely different fashion. The Wikileaks controversy has brought this out into the public and exposed a great deal that the US would have preferred never be known. This can surely not be a bad thing for the world in the long term.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 5th, 2013.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (3)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@Anon: Fully agree with your views. Manning's commitment to his nation and humanity in general is respectable above all else.
@unbeliever: You have obviously not been following this case at all. He wasnt some idiot who came across documents and decided to publish them. He went through a great number of these documents, and had several personal experiences that led him to believe that the public had a right to know what the US govt was up to. This is the entire point of Freedom of Speech, the ability to question those in power. As far as the security ramifications are concerned, the US govt, in all this time, has been unable to name a single security incident that was caused by the leaked cables. I'd also be interested to know which concept of media-ethics the NY Times and the Washington Post upset as claimed in the article. The one where they, for once, published a story not directly sanctioned by the state machinery? Manning very obviously acted out of conscience. His oath and loyalty is to his nation, to his people, and to his own ethics, not to a government that repeatedly lies to cover up its actions!
This soldier is not someone who deserves any kudos - he betrayed his oath, stole information and passed it on without so much as reading what it contained. Should some of that information have been public - perhaps - but passing on information without even knowing what it contained or the possible ramifications was beyond stupid.