Julian Assange may have more sidekicks than we know of.
You can read about how Bradley Manning, a gender-questioning soldier, came to subvert the American military’s authority over information regarding the war in Iraq. He has simultaneously earned the title of WikiLeaks hero and U.S. traitor, on account of the classified information he leaked over the internet. An impressive army of one. (via Arts & Letters Daily)
6 responses
This “traitor” nonsense is total bullshit. The information Bradley Manning released was just “classified,” not “top secret” like with Daniel Ellsberg (Pentagon Papers whistleblower), yet we herald Ellsberg and our government has scrambled to try to make it seem like what Manning allegedly did is somehow worse. PETTIFOG ALERT. Also, the government is making it pretty much impossible for Manning to get a fair trail by publicly making comments like “He broke the law” (Obama) and making lurid, accusatory statements about his personal life (Clinton). It’s just absolutely ridiculous.
I’m trying to decide if the first sentence of this post implies that its author had never before heard of Bradley Manning. If so, I am shocked. Manning’s act is the most important and, I would argue, courageous case of whistleblowing since the release of the Pentagon Papers, if not indeed in all of US history. His subsequent, prolonged detention -10 months of which were passed in solitary confinement and in conditions that were cruel and inhumane by any definition, and quite possibly amounted to torture– illustrates the increasingly draconian measures which the US government utilizes to crack down on any form of dissent, even or especially those motivated by humanitarian concerns, and/or the desire for transparency. Regardless of one’s personal opinion on Manning’s actions, his case is monumentally important; if the author of this post is just now catching on, I have to wonder where she has been for the past year.
The NY Mag article is a smear piece. The examples of blatant speculation, outright inaccuracy, and personal opinion masquerading as objective journalism are so numerous and egregious as to quite literally defy enumeration. Among other things, the prolonged (and again speculative) analysis of Manning’s gender and sexual identity is a transparent attempt to pathologize an act of conscience, reducing an altruistic political act to the gender/sexual “confusion” of an adolescent. In reality, Manning’s decision to blow the whistle on appalling cases of human rights violations has absolutely *nothing* to do with either his gender or his sexuality. The above post, with its seemingly innocuous remark about a “gender-questioning soldier,” simply repeats the pernicious sexual pathologization of the NY Mag article without question. And here I thought The Rumpus was supposed to be sex positive?
The next line further repeats the article’s tendency to disguise subjective opinion as objective fact. “He has simultaneously earned the title of WikiLeaks hero and U.S. traitor.” Earned by whom, and according to whom? I am an American citizen, and I consider Manning to be a U.S. *hero*.
Frankly, it looks as if the author of this post had merely skimmed the NY Mag article and then reiterated its most offensive elements. To me at least it is indeed deeply if inadvertently offensive. I recall reading somewhere that The Rumpus doesn’t “do” political rants. In retrospect, perhaps it’s really better if you stick to culture.
Dawn, it seems to me like you’re trying to have it both ways. If Manning leaked the documents in question, then he broke te law. You’re not arguing that this is a case of mistaken identity, that they’ve got the wrong guy. If you want to consider Manning a hero, that’s certainly your right, but it’s a little ridiculous to complain about Manning’s inability to get a fair trial because of something Obama is saying when your own words lead to the same conclusion.
Bennett, you can call it whistle blowing all you want–and that’s an argument I’d be open to, personally–but in the end, the people who will decide if it’s whistle blowing or an illegal dump of classified information are the members of the court martial that Manning will eventually face. And just because you consider Manning only a hero doesn’t mean that there aren’t people out there who either disagree with you on that or who are able to hold both opinions of Manning.
Again, if he leaked those documents, then he broke the law. Does it rise to the level of treason? Not for me, because treason has a very specific definition in US law, but I’m not being asked to sit in judgment on the case either. If I were, I’d have to listen to the arguments and see what conclusion I come to then. That’s not going to ever happen for me, though, because I’m not a member of the military and so will never sit on a court martial, so I’m left with commenting on blogs.
Brian, I agree with you: if Manning leaked the documents, he indeed broke US law. At the same time, I think it’s very clear that he did not commit treason. As you mention, treason has a very specific definition in US law (the only crime to be so defined in the Constitution), in part precisely to defend against (ab)using the term to discredit one’s opponents. Treason consists in levying war against the United States, or giving its enemies aid and comfort. I think it’s fairly clear that Manning did neither of these things, and in fact treason is not one of the charges he is facing.
At the same time, I am not sure why we are hiding behind the rote statement of “He broke the law.” There is something deeply pernicious about the way the Bush administration (and the Obama one after) could redefine things like torture and indefinite detainment as newly legal, while someone who reveals a case of torture to the public is committing a crime. Succinctly put: it is now legal to torture someone, and illegal to talk about it. That may be the current reality of US law, but it’s a deeply disturbing one. The fact that we can calmly state “Well, he broke the law” without questioning the tenets and moral validity of the law itself is almost more disturbing, to me, than the actual legal changes.
“Traitor” is a weighted word, all the more so because we are on a literary blog and not a legal one. Legally, it’s fairly clear that Manning did not commit treason; linguistically, it’s a highly-charged moniker and the fact that The Rumpus could use it so straightforwardly is, I repeat, offensive. Many American heroes broke the law – for example, Ellsberg, who has publicly called Bradley Manning a hero. Martin Luther King, Jr. broke US law. Does that make him a hero or a traitor? From Birmingham Jail, he wrote: “I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for law.”
That brings us to a debate on ethics, to the difficult distinction between law and justice, which are by no means synonymous. I would submit that the law be defined as the monopoly of violence held by the State against all other comers. This is not to say that the law isn’t necessary, and it’s not the only possible definition. But it opens up a very important debate I think we all should be having. As the laws of this country come to embrace acts that are blatantly immoral (indefinite detention, torture) we may all be called upon to break the law in the name of justice.
In closing, Bradley Manning broke US law. And he is, I think, an American hero. There is absolutely no contradiction between those two statements.
Bennett, I am the author of this post, and I wanted to apologize for my seemingly ignorant synopsis of the article. I in no way intended to suggest or propose that Manning’s sexuality played a tacit role in his subsequent actions. I too believe that Manning’s actions are of enormous importance. And in saying that Manning has been deemed a “WikiLeaks hero” and a “US traitor”, I was paraphrasing the caption of the actual article in which those terms are used. I am sorry that I upset you and other readers of this post, I should be more careful with my paraphrasing, for it seems to insinuate that someone else’s words are my own when they are not. I do not believe that Manning is a traitor, by any means. Like you, I think he is an American hero. And after reading your comments, I see the how the elements of the article you critique are indeed very palpable. I should have reflected more before deciding to post it, I just thought that Bradley Manning’s case would still be of interest (politically) to some of the readers, regardless of the time that has passed over the past year.
Additionally, The Rumpus is and always will be sex positive. Any words I have used that would seem to express the contrary are severely misplaced.
I thought I should share that with you all, again, I am sorry if I offended anyone, I sincerely did not realize the weight of my words.
Claire, thank you for the clarification. I should probably apologize, too, for my heated response. I was (obviously) angered by the post, but I can see now that it was meant as paraphrase rather than declarative statement. Words are indeed powerful and, while I stand by my points, I probably could have chosen my own more judiciously.
Click here to subscribe today and leave your comment.